Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Countryside Issues

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I have the honour to present a petition that has been signed by 100 residents of my constituency, who live in one of the rural areas there. It reads:
That the non-rural population of these islands has become distanced from the realities of meat, egg, milk production and pest control.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House;

(i) takes notice of the concerns expressed by those who marched on 1st March, 1998;
(ii) endeavours to keep animals and animal welfare in perspective,
(iii) refrains from interfering with traditional British rural pastimes such as foxhunting.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Shooters Hill Fire Station

Mr. Clive Efford: I have a petition from the residents in the vicinity of Shooters Hill fire station, who request that the House of Commons
urge the Home Secretary to refuse to grant permission to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority to close Shooters Hill Fire Station.
This afternoon, I shall be presenting a similar petition of 13,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing street.

To lie upon the Table.

Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

Fox CONTROL IN NATIONAL PARKS

'.—A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if he uses a dog for the control of foxes in the interests of sheep farming within the boundaries of any national park.'.—[Mr. Campbell—Savours.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Mink—

'—(1) Subject to compliance with subsections (2) and (3), hunting of feral mink with dogs shall be permitted on any land, river, lake, waterway or coastal area at the request of the owner or occupier thereof where that person reasonably believes that mink need to be controlled there in order to protect or conserve fish (whether required for angling or human consumption), waterfowl, ground nesting birds or other wild life.
 (2) Any person hunting mink under subsection (1), should take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to habitat or wild life.
(3) When any otter is located during the course of hunting all dogs under the control of the person hunting shall be withdrawn from the vicinity immediately.
(4) Hunting of feral mink shall not be permitted in any area certified by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as unsuitable for hunting because of likely disturbance to the habitat of wild life, provided the relevant Agency controls the mink in such area by other means.
(5) For the purpose of this section "owner" shall include riparian owner.'.

New clause 6—Gun Packs—
'.—(1) A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if as a member of a gun pack:

(a) he hunts foxes with dogs for the purpose of culling, whether or not foxes are killed by dogs in the process, or
(b) he hunts an injured fox in order to kill it with dogs where it is reasonably believed by the person in control of those dogs to be the most effective method of killing it.

(2) In this section "Gun Pack" means any club or association registered with the Welsh Farmers Fox Control Association or any like Fox Control Association with similar purposes established in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland and which operates according to the code of practice prescribed by that Association'.
New clause 7—Control of foxes in national parks—
'.—A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if he uses a dog for the control of foxes in the interests of animal husbandry within the boundaries of any national park.'.
New clause 19—Circumstances in which shooting is unsafe or impractical—
'A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he hunts any wild mammal with dogs on land where the owner or occupier thereof reasonably considers that such hunting is necessary in order to kill, control or disperse such mammals and either:—

(a) because the public have rights of access thereto or such land is in close proximity to a highway or public right


of way or otherwise the owner or occupier reasonably considers it unsafe to kill or control such mammals by shooting, or
(b) the owner or occupier of such land reasonably considers that it is impractical to kill or control such mammals by shooting.'.

New clause 25—Licensing of terrier work—

'.—(1) Terrier and other work by dogs to dig out foxes shall only be allowed under licensing arrangements.
(2) The Secretary of State shall determine whether it is expedient to establish a licensing authority for terrier work.
(3) If the Secretary of State determines that a licensing authority shall be established, it shall be funded by a separate levy on terrier packs and shall be run at no cost to public funds.
(4) The conditions attaching to licences for terrier work shall be established by the authority, but shall include—

(a) a prohibition on the use of hard or baiting dogs;
(b) a provision that foxes bolted using terriers or other dogs shall normally be despatched with a suitable firearm and by no other means; and
(c) a requirement for all dogs used for this purpose to be fitted with electronic locators to establish their position underground.'.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Peter Atkinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before we start the debate on this wide-ranging group of new clauses, may I seek your guidance on a question of procedure? At some stage, no doubt, we shall have a Division on new clause 1. There are those of us who would, for example, disagree with new clause 1 but agree with new clauses 3 and 6. Will we have an opportunity to have separate Divisions on new clauses 3 and 6 and, for all I know, on other new clauses in the group?

Madam Speaker: At this early stage of the debate, I am not prepared to commit the Chair. I need to hear the debate. I am aware that there are distinctions between the new clauses. I shall consider separate Divisions when we reach that stage. I understand the point of order that has been raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is not a wrecking new clause.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Rubbish.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I support the Bill, and I voted for it on Second Reading. I remind my hon. Friends that if they wish to know the origins of the new clause, they should check Labour policy documents from the mid-1980s. References to the contents of the new clause are to be found in agriculture policy papers written by members of the Labour party and approved by the national executive committee of the Labour party before the 1987 general election.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not intend to give way. I know that the intention of Conservative Members is to wreck the Bill. I am not in the business of wrecking this particular Bill.
When the Bill was considered in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has been a doughty campaigner on these issues and has handled the Bill with great skill, unfortunately, in winding up one of his contributions, made a statement that I thought should be addressed on the Floor of the House. It involved an interview with a man called Mr. Christopher Ogleby from the Coniston hunt. He had said during the course of his interview that he hunted in the Lake district with a fell pack for reasons of sport. That might well be the case for Mr. Ogleby, but the reality is that there are many people who hunt in the Lake district, not necessarily for sport, but out of necessity. They believe that it is the only way of dealing with the fox as a predator.
I want to say a few words about how the fox is a predator in the Lake district and, I presume, to some extent in other national parks. Every year, farmers telephone the local hunt in my own and neighbouring constituencies and ask those in it to clear the fells of the fox. They do so because they are worried about lamb losses. Over the years, the anti-hunting lobby, of which I would generally form a part, has argued that it is untrue that foxes take lambs. I have seen lambs that have been taken by the fox. It often happens in my constituency. I cannot allow the debate to proceed on the basis of something that I know to be untrue.
There is adequate evidence that, in the Lake district, on the fells, the fox takes the lamb. I am told by those who support the Bill that the way to deal with the problem is to shoot the fox, but I invite my hon. Friends to think through the implications of shooting in the Lake district post-Cullen, because people are moving from handguns to rifles. They are holding them legally. There is a great danger that people will come into the national park with rifles under the pretext that they are shooting foxes, and there will be an accident, possibly in an area where tourists are using the countryside tracks.
The House should remember that we are also considering introducing right-to-roam legislation, to increase access in areas where there are many tourists. It is quite wrong for Parliament to carry through legislation that will in effect allow people to carry guns into the heart of my constituency. I am arguing for an exemption in national parks, because, historically, the fell packs have had a useful role to play. We are not talking about what I call social hunting in the national park, with people galloping around on horses, wearing red coats and blowing horns, although on occasion they do blow horns. We are talking about packs with only two or three people on foot, with dogs—packs that are called out by farmers to clear the fells, especially during the lambing season. That is what I am seeking to protect through my new clause.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will argue against my case, on the basis of what happens over the border in areas outside the national park. That is for him to argue; I am protecting the foot packs that exist in the national park. Many of his constituents in the Blencathra hunt, which is based in his constituency, look favourably on my new clause, because they believe that it is the only way to proceed.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as this is a wide group of new clauses, which range from the national parks to new clause 19, which is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is for the Chair to decide on those matters. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) should not intervene in that way.

Mr. Baldry: New clause 19, which stands in my name, relates to hunting where shooting is impractical. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is your intention that we should debate the new clauses in this group, which are rather diverse, clause by clause, or will you allow us to debate all six new clauses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has already dealt with that in part. The new clauses were grouped in this way so that the debate can range over all of them. We shall eventually vote on new clause 1. Whether the House divides on the other new clauses will depend on how the debate has proceeded.

Mr. Baldry: I was not asking about voting so much as introducing—[Interruption].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can discuss any of the new clauses that are grouped in this way.

Mr. Baldry: In that case, I shall speak to new clause 19, which stands in my name. I am not sure why hon. Members on the Government Benches are so restive. Some of us sat for many weeks in the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, and for many weeks the Committee did not progress further than line 1 of clause 1. We were then confronted with the extraordinary situation whereby the Bill was effectively rewritten. The Bill before the House today consists almost entirely of new clauses, which were not before the House on Second Reading, so it is not unreasonable that we should turn our attention to these issues.

Mr. Tom King: May I be clear about this, as it is alleged that filibustering might occur today? My hon. Friend said that in Committee it took many weeks to reach the second line of the Bill, but is it not true that the filibustering that took place in Committee was by the Bill's supporters, not its opponents?

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend is correct. The House and the country can draw its own inferences from the fact that those of us who were opposed to the Bill played an intelligent and constructive part in the Committee's proceedings, because, if passed, the Bill will be part of the criminal law of this country, so it is important that Parliament should get it right. It was a frustrating role, because for many weeks it was clear that the supporters of the Bill did not wish to make progress, simply because they wanted to hog the Committee's time.

Mr. Garnier: Does my hon. Friend recall that not only did the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) encourage filibustering tactics throughout the first five

sittings of the Committee, during which we discussed only the first two lines of the Bill, but he then tabled amendments and voted against them?

Mr. Baldry: Absolutely. If ever there were evidence of the tactics that the hon. Gentleman adopted, it is that he tabled and voted against his own amendments, which was pretty bizarre.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House how long the Committee spent on the first two lines of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) responds, there is little point in going over the time that the Committee took. Will he now address himself to the new clause before the House?

Mr. Baldry: I hope that I shall dispatch the new clause much more speedily than the time it took the Committee to get through line 1.
Clause 3(1) provides that a
person does riot commit an offence … if he uses a dog to stalk a wild mammal … for the purpose—
(a) of obtaining"—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In respect of your ruling, I am at a loss to understand the dilemma that my hon. Friend faced. I understand that the Bill is regarded by its proponents as a matter of some urgency, and that they feel, perfectly legitimately, that there is a strong case that the law should be changed. I heard my hon. Friend refer to the public being able to draw inferences from the delays. I am not sure what inferences he is talking about. I was hoping that he could explain to the House the inferences that members of the public might be able to draw.
As I understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you think that my hon. Friend should not legitimately explain what went on in the Standing Committee. The purpose of today's exercise is to report the Committee's proceedings to the House, and people like me have come here with a relatively open and detached mind on these matters. I cannot do my constitutional duty and reach a proper and detached judgment on which way to vote—in the event of any votes being reached—unless I am allowed to listen to members of the Committee explain precisely why a Bill that was so urgent when it left the House became so dilatory in Committee. We could have dealt with this urgent matter many weeks ago, so will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already dealt with that point of order. The purpose of today's proceedings is to discuss the new clauses before the House.

Mr. Baldry: The 14 new clauses that now form part of the Bill were not before the House on Second Reading, so we are considering an entirely new Bill today. The Committee having spent so many weeks considering just line 1, the Home Office panicked and had to rewrite the Bill entirely.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned by what my


hon. Friend has just said. I was under the impression that this was a private Member's Bill, yet we hear that the Home Office is responsible for a massive redraft. I hope that, in what has so far been an excellent speech, my hon. Friend will explain precisely what has happened for the benefit of the House, which is very interested in private Members' Bills. He says that much of what we are now debating did not exist on Second Reading or in Committee. The House has a role to play in scrutinising not only what has happened, but the detail of the new clauses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members may refer to those matters, but only in so far as they are relevant to the new clauses before us.

Mr. Baldry: The clauses before us are all new and, as I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Procedure Committee, I should tell him that although the Government claim to be neutral on the Bill, when they saw that the way in which it was drafted by the hon. Member for Worcester was such a complete and utter shambles—a dog's breakfast—they felt beholden at least to put some order into it and redraft it. I suspect that it is for the Procedure Committee or some other Committee of the House to decide whether it is appropriate for the Government to profess to be neutral, while helping hon. Members by drafting their Bills.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge that there are such things as private Members' Bills in the form of Government handouts. I took through the House a private Member's Bill that was essentially a Government Bill and assisted the Government in getting their business on the statute book, when there was not enough parliamentary time for them to do so themselves. Does my hon. Friend suggest that the Bill, in its present form, is effectively a Government handout?

Mr. Baldry: I can report only that the Bill consists almost entirely of new clauses written by parliamentary draftsmen on behalf of the Home Office.
Conservative Members who, at some time, had the opportunity of serving in the previous Government, know that when Ministers introduce new clauses, they have the benefit of notes on clauses. A Committee usually has the benefit of notes on clauses, too, because, as a courtesy, Ministers make them available to members of the Committee. This situation is truly bizarre, because the Minister concerned wanted to remain neutral and did not even give the notes on clauses to the promoter of the Bill. Thus parliamentary draftsmen handed to the Minister new clauses that he did not understand, and the Minister handed the new clauses to the hon. Member for Worcester, who understood them even less, so neither was in a position to explain them to the Committee. They were totally unable to explain to the Committee the meaning of simple English legal words such as "permit" or "allow".

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the Minister, who sat patiently—he was probably suffering from great frustration—as he listened to the hon.

Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) attempt to explain what the Bill was about. I appreciate that it was a difficult task. However, the Minister moved away from his neutral position when he voted in favour of an amendment that introduced the concept of intention into the hunting issue. He should be congratulated on that, because he was brave enough to move away from the Government line, to attempt to improve the original clause 1, which has long since disappeared from the Bill. I suspect that that vote was the genesis of the complete redrafting of, and the throwing away of much of the rubbish in, the original Bill. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not be quite so cruel to the Minister.

Mr. Baldry: I like the Minister. He is a nice guy. I make no complaint against him, but it was his misfortune to be on the Bill. Because he was desperately trying to maintain his neutrality, he kept secret from the Committee all the notes on new clauses from which the Committee would normally benefit.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have been listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for some 14 minutes and he has yet to discuss the new clause. I wish to know when he will address the new clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make it absolutely clear to everybody in the House that any reference to the new clauses, whether in Committee or elsewhere, is in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Provided that hon. Members refer their remarks to the new clause under discussion, that is correct.

Mr. Baldry: I was surprised by the point of order from the hon. Member for Worcester, because I and other members of the Committee listened to him with great courtesy week after week, hour after hour, yet he does not have the patience to listen to me for just 14 minutes.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): My hon. Friend is not being totally fair to the Home Office. The Home Secretary made it clear to The Daily Telegraph and The Times that he had nothing to do with drafting the Bill. We know that the Home Office has given a handout Bill, but the Home Secretary says that it has nothing to do with him. Moreover, we do not even have an Agriculture Minister on the Government Front Bench—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) responds, I repeat that I should be grateful if he would now deal with the new clause before the House.

Mr. Baldry: Clause 3(1) provides that
A person does not commit an offence … if he uses a dog to stalk a wild mammal … for the purpose … of obtaining food for human consumption … controlling the number of a particular species in a particular area, in order to safeguard the welfare of that species … if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot as soon as possible".


Under the clause, if a dog is used to stalk a wild mammal, steps must be taken to shoot the wild mammal as soon as possible, so it follows that a dog must not, in any circumstances, be allowed to kill it. However, the Bill permits dogs to be used for certain purposes.

10 am

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): We must get to grips with the use of the word "dog". Is my hon. Friend aware that a dog is something other than a hound, and that the animals that we are discussing should properly be called hounds? The Bill's title is incorrect.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend may wish to develop that point later, but the lack of understanding of how the countryside works among the supporters of the Bill has characterised proceedings.

Mr. John Gummer: I was not a member of the Committee, so will my hon. Friend explain whether it discussed the clause? Currently, one can allow a dog to chase and kill rats. Under the Bill, would one now have to shoot the rats? Are rats more appealing than any other animal to the Bill's promoter?

Mr. Baldry: It is clear that the Bill allows the hunting of rats and rabbits with dogs, but not of hares or foxes. The Bill should be entitled, Some Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. It is difficult to find any intellectual justification for hunting some wild mammals with dogs, but not others.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has referred the House to the exemption in clause 3(2), and to the word "shot". As I understand it, the protection provided by clause 3 applies only in the limited circumstances there set out. He will know that some wild animals, such as hares, are often dispatched otherwise than by shooting when removed from cover, perhaps by being struck on the head with a stick. Is not clause 3(2) ineffective in providing the protection that one assumes the Home Office intends to confer?

Mr. Baldry: None of the Home Office's new clauses was examined with the care with which they should have been, because the Committee spent so many weeks considering the first line of the original clause 1. The promoter of the Bill was keen to rush through consideration of the 14 new clauses so that the Bill could reach Report today, otherwise we would have had a rather dull Friday. The Bill has monopolised Standing Committee C, so no other private Member's Bill is in Committee. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the exemptions are limited and have not been discussed thoroughly.
Clause 3(1)(a) and (b) provide a complete defence for the sport of stag hunting in the west country, but not for fox hunting when a fox is killed by hounds above ground. Stag hunting contrasts with fox hunting, because the hunted animal is shot with a shotgun at close range when it is at bay, which is the first opportunity to shoot it at such a range that its immediate death, by a clean and painless kill, is assured, and when it does not present a moving target. That fully meets the requirements of clause 3(2).
When the Home Office redrafted the Bill, the promoter of the Bill may not have realised that clause 3(2) provided a defence of stag hunting, but it clearly does so, in the normal use of English law and language. In contrast, foxes do not stand at bay at any time or for any reason. Thus, they seldom present a stationary target for shooting, and are never still when aware of a human presence. Shooting foxes is impractical, and fox hunting when a fox is killed above ground could never meet the requirements of clause 3(2).
The purposes of stag hunting in the west country are covered by clause 3(1)(a) and (b), and the purpose of fox hunting is covered by clause 3(1)(c), yet fox hunting would be made illegal and stag hunting not. That is another example of the Bill's illogicality. Clause 3 refers to "a dog", and hunting involves a number of hounds, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has made clear. However, section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that in any Act, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. Under the Bill, however impractical or inhumane it may be, foxes could be controlled only by shooting.

Mr. Gummer: Who will decide the moment at which it is appropriate to shoot? My hon. Friend sensibly said that the appropriate moment in a stag hunt is when a stag can assuredly be shot. The Bill does not deal with the issue of who decides the appropriate moment. Stags have been hunted for many centuries, so people know what is the appropriate moment. Could someone tell a huntsman, "You had a chance to shoot the stag 25 minutes ago. Because you did not do it then, you may not do it now"?

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, which applies to several issues dealt with by the Bill.
The Bill provides for severe criminal sanctions. If it becomes law, magistrates will have to make value judgments in difficult circumstances. As a lawyer, I am concerned that owners or occupiers would be committing an offence if they permitted hunting on their land. Not only would the Bill criminalise everyone involved in field sports; it could put every farmer in the country in jeopardy. In Committee, the Bill's promoter and the Minister were unable to explain the meaning of the word "permit". Would farmers or landowners be committing an offence if they actively did not prevent a hunt from taking place on their land?
My right hon. Friend made the good point that it will be extremely difficult for people to know whether and at which moment they are committing an offence. We are dealing with natural events, which humans cannot always control.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention a matter that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Keepers may be out night after night with a rifle, trying to shoot a fox that is doing demonstrable damage to lambs or ground game. Could the right time for the keeper to shoot be defined, or does my hon. Friend agree that, as the hon. Gentleman said, foxes are most effectively dealt with in such circumstances by the fell packs?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Bill has been drafted by people whom I suspect


have little understanding of how the hunt and the countryside work. It is being promoted by people who represent urban constituencies and have urban values. They want to impose their urban values on the countryside.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend has raised a point that worries me, as a lawyer—the question of "permit" and the potential criminal penalties that might be visited upon some farmer or landowner who has not been involved in any activity. Are not Labour Members being intolerant? It is noteworthy that many of those in the House today are new Labour Members. At the same time as they seek to destroy the privilege of an Englishman's home being his castle by supporting the right to roam, they want to impose criminal sanctions on landowners and farmers who may not have been involved in any activity. Is not it the criminal sanctions that are of particular concern to law-abiding farmers and landowners?

Mr. Baldry: It is staggering that the potential jeopardy in which the Bill will place every farmer in the country has not been picked up by the media and is not fully understood throughout the country. It should be, because under the Bill, many of the masters and fellows of a number of Oxford and Cambridge colleges are likely to find themselves up before the beak.
I can hardly believe it, but it is obvious that there is no understanding among Labour Members of the fact that one can have an interest in land other than as an owner or occupier. No Labour Member appears even to have heard of the Law of Property Act 1925, under which lords of the manor retain the hunting rights over considerable tracts of land. If hunting takes place on that land, will lords of the manor—many of the titles have been flogged to Americans—be liable to criminal sanctions? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said earlier, enormous numbers of people will be in jeopardy under the Bill, on terms and in circumstances that are unclear.

Mrs. Angela Browning: As my hon. Friend knows, I was not a member of the Committee. Earlier, he mentioned shooting at night. How will the Bill impact on current legislation dealing with night shooting licences? He, like me, served as a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which issues the licences. Will there be a huge new bureaucratic system, whereby people will have to apply for more night shooting licences, with all the bureaucracy that that entails?

Mr. Baldry: If my hon. Friend were to ask the hon. Member for Worcester about night shooting licences, I suspect that he would not have the foggiest idea what my hon. Friend was talking about. The hon. Gentleman did not have the benefit of notes on clauses, but he wanted to rush through the Bill. I shall gladly give way to him if he wants to tell me what night shooting licences are—but in fact on this matter, like on many others relating to the countryside, he has no knowledge.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend mentioned the lack of understanding among Labour Members who represent

urban areas. I want to correct him on that point. Although Labour Members may be urban folk, there are still plenty of people who live in towns who perfectly understand the case that my hon. Friend is making. Many of the people who come to Leicestershire to hunt live in London or other conurbations. I hope that my hon. Friend will not fall into the trap of saying that this is a country versus town issue; it is a liberty of the subject issue, among many others. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take that into account in the remainder of his remarks.

Mr. Baldry: Throughout the Committee proceedings, my hon. and learned Friend demonstrated that he was much more inherently fair-minded than me.

Mr. Colvin: One of the most notable absentees from the Labour Benches is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend referred earlier to fell hounds. One of the most famous packs of fell hounds—John Peel's hounds—comes from the Minister's constituency, so if anyone should be participating in this debate, it is he.

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that MAFF—where I served until the election—has had any involvement in any stage of the Bill. Therefore, there has been no advice from anyone who has any understanding of the government of the countryside.

Mr. Gummer: Another notable absentee is the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who speaks on behalf of the Church Commissioners. No one seems to have noticed that under my hon. Friend's interpretation of the Bill, there is no doubt that the Archbishop of Canterbury could be in jeopardy—[Interruption.] It is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and, even more, the Home Office that has helped him with the total recasting of the Bill, are in a difficult position. If the Archbishop of Canterbury and other leading prelates are to be arraigned before the courts because someone has inadvertently shot—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are going wider and wider of the mark. I ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) to stick to discussing the new clause.

Mr. Baldry: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend referred to MAFF. He will be aware of the precise terms of new clause 1 and new clause 7, which I tabled. Both new clauses suggest that hunting should be permitted in the interests of husbandry, as broadly defined. Would it not be of enormous convenience to the House to have a spokesman here from MAFF, who could tell us whether we are right to think that there are circumstances in which good husbandry requires fox hunting?

Mr. Baldry: A number of other new clauses probe whether such advice could be obtained.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend was developing an important argument in response


to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), namely, that the Bill—in particular, clause 8—would impose what some would call very draconian criminal sanctions. My hon. Friend's new clause 19 specifically refers to an offence being committed by "the owner or occupier". Surely, as we emerge into the 21st century, we all believe that a wild animal has the right to be humanely dispatched—and the person most likely to be sufficiently skilled to dispatch that animal is the keeper or person charged with killing it, not the owner or occupier, who may be opposed to hunting but allow it on his land to control an animal that is creating a nuisance.

Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything in "Erskine May" that would allow you to stop this absurd and undemocratic filibustering by Conservative Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a proper point of order.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a sensible point.
At the heart of the debate is the fact that many of us—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, town dwellers as well as country dwellers—actually understand how the countryside works and has evolved over many centuries. Keeping control of pests has evolved over many centuries, as has doing so humanely. The Bill was drafted in haste. It contains severe criminal sanctions that will not benefit anyone.

Mr. Christopher Gill: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, the burden of his argument is that the Bill has been badly drafted. New clause 1 refers to hunting with dogs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in general parlance, a dog is taken to be the male of the canine species? Therefore, if the Bill as it stands is enacted, there will be a total exemption for hunting with bitches. [Interruption.] I am fascinated by the mirth of my colleagues. If the Bill's supporters fully understood what the Bill was about, they would surely understand that basic difference and rephrase the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Bill in general: we are debating new clauses.

Mr. Baldry: As the Bill's promoter finds it difficult to tell the difference between a dog and a hound, I am not surprised that he cannot tell the difference between a dog and a bitch.

Mrs. Browning: The point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) would surely not be acceptable to Labour Members, because it would allow no gender balance.

Mr. Baldry: A shot at a fox from anything other than close range, particularly when it is moving, is difficult. It would be impossible to ensure a clean kill, and a shot is likely to cause injury and extreme suffering. That

applies even to gun packs in Wales, where the fox is flushed from cover by hounds and fired at with a shotgun while it is in motion.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire): My hon. Friend's point is central to the new clauses. Clause 3(2) of the redrafted Bill states:
Subsection (1) applies to a person only if he takes reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot as soon as possible after it is located or emerges from cover.
Subsection (1) is the anti-hunting provision. New clause 6 deals, in part at least, with the issue of gun packs. What is the attitude of the Bill's supporters, in so far as my hon. Friend has been able to divine it from Committee, on gun packs and the issue of culling foxes, partly by the use of hounds or dogs and partly by shooting? It is totally unclear to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is becoming a speech. He must be brief.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall finish in a few words. Could my hon. Friend answer that important question?

Mr. Baldry: I do not think that the Bill's supporters have applied their minds to the issue of gun packs.
The Bill was running out of time in Committee, and the Home Office told its supporters, "The Bill as drafted is such a mess that we cannot let it return to the House. The only way in which it can make progress is by the acceptance of all the new clauses." There are 14 new clauses, and this is the first time that the House has seen them. Because of the conduct of the Bill's supporters in Committee, they ran short of time and, despite the agreement of those who opposed the Bill—the sittings motion, for example, could have taken us through the night, and we were perfectly co-operative on that—issues such as gun packs were not properly debated. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to say that the Bill's supporters never turned their minds to these issues. It would be interesting to hear whether the Bill's promoter and his supporters can coherently and intelligently explain any one of their proposals.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is not the problem that my hon. Friend is trying to find the Bill's rationale, particularly in the context of new clause 1, but that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), when moving new clause 1, gave the game away by justifying it not in terms of animal husbandry or animal welfare, but by saying that we need not worry about the new clause, because it would not involve people dressing up and riding around on horses? Is not class bias the key to the Bill and to that new clause?

Mr. Baldry: One of the more bizarre features of the Bill is that throughout its long time in Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester said many times that he was a keen angler. We were never able to establish why field sports should be regarded as "cruel" while angling was


not. How can one philosophically justify one but not the other? We were told by the hon. Gentleman and by others that it was because field sports—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again going wide of the mark by dealing with a matter that would have been more appropriate on Second Reading. Will he please return to the new clauses?

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said that 14 new clauses that were not envisaged on Second Reading have been introduced. You will wish to take that into account when considering whether there should be a stand part debate on every clause. I hope that you will give full weight to what my hon. Friend said, namely that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have stand part debates on new clauses.

Mr. Baldry: The only way to minimise the possibility of a fox being injured is to use a rifle to shoot it when it is unaware of the presence of the shooter, who must be a skilled and experienced marksman. That is the only humane way to kill a fox. [Interruption.] I am not sure why Labour Members think that the humane killing of foxes is a matter for laughter. We are debating serious issues, and people might be put in jeopardy. The fox can be shot humanely only when it is unaware of the marksman's presence and is motionless, and that be done only at long range. Even in ideal circumstances, there is not a 100 per cent. guarantee of a clean kill, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends who are experienced marksmen will agree.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend's point goes to the heart of the argument. In stag hunting, the stag is brought to bay and can be shot cleanly because it is standing still. I spoke to some of my fanners last weekend, and we discussed the shooting of foxes by rifles. They said that they thought that less than a third could be killed cleanly. That is probably too high an estimate. What about the other two thirds of foxes, which could be wounded and left to die a lingering death? Are not people concerned about that?

Mr. Baldry: Apparently not. My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Bill, if passed, will cause an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering and cruelty in the countryside. I hope that hon. Members and those outside understand that.

Mr. Mike Hancock: I am interested in the clean kill syndrome. I do not know how many times the hon. Gentleman has been at a hunt, but has he been present when there was not a clean kill? What happens to the fox at such times?

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman should address the issue that fox hunting has managed over the years effectively to control a pest. If he thinks that marksmen in the countryside seeking to pick off foxes at long range

with high-powered rifles is a better way to control the fox population, that demonstrates how little he understands the countryside.

Mr. Soames: Although I am a keen shooter, I have never shot and would never shoot a fox. Can my hon. Friend envisage a fox obediently and politely standing still while it is shot or does he anticipate, as I think he does, that someone trying to kill a fox will lie up somewhere and take pot shots at a moving target at a range of possibly 300 to 400 yd? However good and experienced a marksman someone may be, he will not kill a fox—he will wound it, if he even hits it. May I tell my hon. Friend that much the most effective way of controlling the fox population remains hunting with hounds?

Mr. Baldry: I would go further than that, in developing my hon. Friend's point, and say that, in some instances, the use of a rifle is plainly unsafe. It is obviously unsafe to use a rifle where there are footpaths, roads, walkers, farm labourers or buildings that may be out of the sight of marksmen.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): Before my hon. Friend moves on to his point on the safety of other people using and living in the countryside, may we return to the issue of bitch packs? I do not know whether that is a serious issue, but one of the hunts in my constituency uses a bitch pack. After killing a fox, bitches typically do not eat the carcase; they cleanly kill the fox and leave it there for the huntsmen to pick up. Many of the foxes that huntsmen pick up have serious injuries from bad shooting.

Mr. Baldry: I have absolutely no doubt that that is correct. It should be evident to every hon. Member that no fox will stand still and invite a shooter to shoot it, and that, if one attempts to shoot a moving target, the chances of a clean kill are minimal.

Mr. David Prior (North Norfolk): Does my hon. Friend agree that not rifles but shotguns will be used to kill foxes, and that nothing could be more cruel or give a fox a worse death than shooting it with a shotgun?

Mr. Baldry: That is absolutely right.

Mr. Colvin: In the interests of saving the time of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall make only this intervention, which will save my having to make a speech. The point that is being made is valid. During consideration of the anti-fox hunting Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the point was made that, that year, the Cambridgeshire hunt had kept a statistical record showing that 40 per cent. of foxes killed were suffering from gangrenous gunshot wounds. It is worth putting that percentage on the record.

Mr. Baldry: I agree; the point is well made.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: I am sure that other hon. Members would like to speak to this group of new clauses, so I must make some progress.
If there is to be a right to roam, there may be many areas where ramblers are walking—quite properly and lawfully—and they could be vulnerable to being shot by a rifle. Powerful rifles have a range that could exceed three miles. A shot can be fired that finishes outside the range of the human eye. In more densely populated parts of the country—where people, animals, cars and buildings can be concealed from view—the danger caused by stray bullets and ricochets need only be imagined. Shooting could pose a significant risk of property damage, and even of human injury or death.
Thus, there are areas in which it is impossible, impractical or unsafe to shoot foxes effectively and humanely. In those areas, shooting will be either impossible, dangerous or inhumane. A wounded mammal's suffering is very great—far greater than that which would be caused even by illegal means, such as gassing or poisoning. Wounded foxes suffer prolonged pain and stress for hours, days or even weeks. They die, eventually, from gangrene or starvation.
It could be suggested that foxes should be trapped or snared. The law requires that traps or snares be inspected every 24 hours. In 24 hours, the stress suffered by a wild animal held captive in unnatural surroundings is extreme. There have been cases in which snared foxes have bitten off their trapped legs to get free. Moreover, the use of such traps and snares poses a danger to other species, such as badger, deer and otter, and even to farm animals such as sheep and lambs, which are to be protected. In such areas, the safest and the most efficient and humane method of control is to hunt the fox with dogs and hounds, and to allow the hounds to kill the fox—which they can do instantly. Consequently, there is no suffering, and no danger to the public.
I therefore hope that the House, in considering this group of new clauses, will carefully consider new clause 19.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I wish to speak to this group of new clauses, but especially to new clause 3, which deals with mink. Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I read with interest all its proceedings. I should, therefore, like to correct a misapprehension about my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and myself, which was expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He said:
Neither of them represent a rural constituency … their views are not valid because they come from areas where … the need for hunting is not understood.
He went on to say:
in terms of the Bill they could be likened to the dogs involved, inasmuch as they seem to be barking on this issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 28 January 1998; c. 123.]
The ancient borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I am proud to represent, has nine parish councils, three of which are in my constituency. Until recently, we had a cattle market. Indeed, the office of the National Farmers Union is in the town centre, and I often meet its representatives. They would be very interested in the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole that we are not a rural constituency. They would also wonder why I am barking, and why I regularly meet them to discuss rural issues. If my hon. Friend cannot recognise where the countryside is, no one should take any notice of his views on it, as he is incapable of dealing with the matter comprehensively.
New clause 3 deals with the protection and conservation of our wildlife. In Standing Committee, no one on either side of the argument disputed the fact that mink are vicious creatures and need to be controlled. No one disputed the fact that they kill indiscriminately; neither did they challenge the evidence that I produced on Second Reading of the devastation caused by mink to the bird colonies of black-headed gulls, common gulls and common terns on islands in Scotland. Neither did they challenge the newspaper report in the Evening Courier (Halifax) of a cat torn to pieces by a mink. People who love cats—there are many cat lovers in this country—should take note of this Bill and of the need to protect cats.
The Committee also did not deal with the case of the two children's guinea pigs, one of which was killed outright, whereas the other's face was so badly torn that it had to be put down. Neither did Committee members deal with the case of the woman who told of savage attacks on her ducks and chickens, which were her livelihood. It did not deal with the fishery manager who estimated that, in two years, he had lost to mink more than £1,000-worth of fish, most of which were left to die with fins torn off and lumps bitten out of them.
The Committee also did not have any response to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which said in a letter to me that
many birds are destroyed by mink and … the problem is perhaps out of control.
I emphasise the words "out of control". The Committee also did not deal with the leaflet from the Game Conservancy Trust which, in recognising the serious problem, said that more attention should be given to mink control. Therefore, I am not alone in thinking that mink should be controlled.
All those matters were ignored in Committee—they were neither disputed nor discussed. Committee members who supported the Bill decided that there was no need for mink control.
I have, therefore, had to table new clause 3, which deals with the conservation and protection of wildlife. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
Any person hunting mink under subsection (1), should take all reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary damage to habitat or wild life.
Of course! But which group is more likely to take those reasonable steps than mink hunters—who really care for wildlife and are doing something to preserve it?

Mr. Soames: Does the hon. Lady agree that many local councils and other bodies that are responsible for good order on river banks are extremely grateful to mink packs for the work that they do in keeping the river banks a better and safer place?

Mrs. Golding: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have a letter from East Dorset district council, which has congratulated the mink hounds group in the area on helping it to control the mink population on the Moors Valley river. The council found that the mink were getting out of control and called in the hounds. In fact, they managed to catch a fair number of mink. Some people might think that the hounds do not catch mink, but I have here the record of one of the hunts which shows how many have been caught and how our wildlife has been preserved.
Subsection (3) of new clause 3 states:
When any otter is located during the course of hunting all dogs under the control of the person hunting shall be withdrawn from the vicinity immediately.
That is the rule of the organisations involved and it already happens.

Mr. Gray: Would the hon. Lady care to comment on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, under which it is not illegal to hunt an otter, but just illegal to kill one? The reason is that it is extremely difficult to ascertain whether one is hunting an otter or a mink. Has the hon. Lady given any thought to how a hunt would ascertain whether it was hunting a mink or an otter and, in particular, how it should proceed if it discovers that it may be hunting an otter?

Mrs. Golding: As I understand it, the hunt examines the tracks of the animal, and if there is any possibility that the animal is an otter, the hounds are immediately withdrawn.
Subsection (4) states:
Hunting of feral mink shall not be permitted in any area certified by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as unsuitable for hunting".
Who could dispute that? There can surely be no argument abut it. If certain areas are protected, there should be no hunting there.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady is making a thoughtful speech, and I congratulate her on it. I advise her not to be too discomfited by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). He appointed himself as the official cheeky chappie of our Standing Committee. I urge her not to be too concerned by what he had to say at any stage.
Subsection (3) deals with otters. In Committee, the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), who is one of the sponsors of the Bill, alleged that mink were under threat from otters because otters hunted and killed mink. I am reasonably sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) knows rather more about the subject than the hon. Member for Basildon. Will she comment on the hon. Lady's allegation?

Mrs. Golding: Certainly I can comment on it. I read the Committee proceedings closely. The hon. Lady did indeed say that, but when challenged by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), she immediately changed her mind, so I am not sure whether her views are valid. I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for his gallant protection of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The hon. Lady is most welcome; it was the least I could do for such honourable Members.

Mrs. Golding: The hon. Gentleman follows in the footsteps of his predecessor.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady was setting out the purpose of subsection (4) of new clause 3, and I entirely understand what she has in mind. Does she consider, should the Bill go any further—to another place,

for example—that there would be merit in amending subsection (4) so that if there was a refusal by the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, there could be an appeal to a magistrates court or Crown court? Otherwise, the absolute say rests with the agency, and that may be deemed to be unsatisfactory.

Mrs. Golding: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but subsection (4) provides that the relevant agency should control the mink in such areas by other means. That puts the onus on the agency, so I think that the point is well covered.
Subsection (5) states:
For the purpose of this section 'owner' shall include riparian owner.
There can surely be no dispute about that.
The Bill is supposed to deal with the protection of our wildlife, among other things. If we do not destroy mink, they will destroy our wildlife.

Kate Hoey: Will my hon. Friend say a little about the suffering that mink will undergo if an alternative method such as caging is used? How likely is it that the mink will suffer even more? Some hon. Members who were anti the factory farming of mink for fur said that caging animals made them go mad and that they suffered enormously. How does my hon. Friend think that caging compares to hunting with dogs in terms of cruelty?

Mrs. Golding: I certainly do not want to follow that line of inquiry; it goes rather wide of the Bill. However, trapping can by its very nature be destructive. Traps have to be examined once every 24 hours and recharged with fresh meat, otherwise the mink will not go near them. People claim that hounds destroy and disturb wildlife on the river banks, but having traps on the river banks means that people have to trample the land every day, which is even more destructive.

Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that on average a mink hunt—I have one in my constituency—will, in a season, cover some 800 sq km and that the equivalent in terms of trapping costs alone would be about £200,000?

Mrs. Golding: Yes, those are the figures that I have been given. There is also a problem with trapping in that it is absolutely useless in tidal waters, as I am sure the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will confirm. Keepers on the River Dovey say that they cannot trap mink because of the tidal waters.

Mr. Öpik: I can confirm that. There is an emphatic belief that the Bill would herald the end of much other wildlife due to the proliferation of mink in that neck of the woods, were it to be passed in its current form.

Mrs. Golding: I understand that mink go through the water no more than twice in any season, which I would not regard as a disturbance of the wildlife.
I hope that new clause 3 will be accepted. It deals with the protection and conservation of our wildlife and with the people who go out in all weathers to control mink, which are vicious and unnecessary and do nothing but damage our wildlife.

Mr. Öpik: I served on the Standing Committee, and I have to say that I am glad that I am not the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Like him, I am a member of the class of 1997, but I believe that his job has been immeasurably more difficult than mine as he is the promoter of this Bill. Things have been a bit strained from time to time, which is hardly surprising, but I am sorry to say that the debates have at times got a bit personal. The issue should not be personal, despite its very strong emotive elements and the feelings that it arouses on both sides of the debate.
In speaking to new clause 6, I hope to reaffirm that my motive is sincerely to create good legislation and proper reform.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Standing Committee. On the subject of being personal, will he join me in thanking the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who chaired the Committee ably and with great good humour during the eight or 10 weeks that it sat? He was sometimes assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).

Mr. Öpik: I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. All hon. Members who served on the Committee have sincerely held views which they expressed with a good deal of humour. I do not question the motives of the hon. Member for Worcester or organisations, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, that worked on the Bill. My argument with the hon. Member for Worcester relates to the content of the Bill and not his reasons for introducing it.
Let me explain my reasons for introducing new clause 6. Gun packs are an absolutely vital and central element in the rural activities that I have observed in Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales. The new clause seeks to modify the regulations proposed in the Bill to make them more workable. I do not disagree with the reference to flushing in the Bill. Last summer, the hon. Member for Worcester listened to my concerns about gun packs and changed the Bill, as then drafted, to accommodate my wishes. I praise him for that. He was willing to listen and was sincere in his desire to draft proper legislation.

Mr. Richard Livsey: As a Member for mid-Wales, I feel that there is no doubt that the arguments that were put to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) were compelling as there is a huge problem of fox infestation within the monoculture of woodlands in mid-Wales, particularly those that have been planted since the war.

Mr. Öpik: I reiterate what my hon. Friend says as his constituency borders mine within Powys. The problems in Montgomeryshire are not confined to mid-Wales, but affect many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Cumbria, Scotland and other outlying areas. There is a fairly successful long-standing tradition of gun packs

stretching across the United Kingdom to a greater or lesser density, so in speaking for mid-Wales, I am also speaking for other hilly and less accessible parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I am extremely worried about the new clause singling out gun packs. Although there may be some controversy about whether hunting purely with hounds controls foxes, it may prevent other more cruel ways of culling foxes. We should remember what Mr. Scott Henderson KC said in his 1951 report to Parliament:
We have no hesitation in saying that unless great care is taken shooting may be an extremely cruel method of control.
Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?

Mr. Öpik: Indeed. Without opening up to debate issues that are not currently before us, I acknowledge that many people believe that shooting is more cruel than hunting with hounds. I shall not stray too far from new clause 6, but the argument is that hounds either kill the fox or they do not; there is no halfway house. There is no question of wounding the fox so that it runs off and dies in agony, or even of starvation, having been rendered unable to hunt. My personal view, having seen gun packs in Montgomeryshire, is that an expert gun pack involving sufficient numbers of individuals, by and large gets the fox straight off. Having said that, the central point is what happens if the fox is wounded and runs away.

Mr. Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. Apropos of the use of gun packs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if people use shotguns to shoot foxes, it is vital that they use a very heavy load of shot and do not use the same shot that they use for pheasants or birds generally?

Mr. Öpik: There is a belief that a massive attack of that nature is more likely to achieve a result straight off than using a narrower-bore shotgun. Having said that, I am not an expert in ballistics and there are probably others here today who could furnish the House with more detailed information.

Mr. Soames: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that any gun pack would seek to use BB shot, which is a heavier shot with 11 pellets per cartridge. That is a very heavy load indeed, and is the absolute minimum requirement to knock over a fox. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify another point? Although new clause 1 seeks to confine the activity to national parks, it has almost the same effect as new clause 6 in that it refers to packs that exist solely to help farmers control the fox because of the very real damage that it does to the land. Does he also agree that many gun packs, when finding a fox in a thick wood, will chop the fox on the spot, so it will never get out? Indeed, it will be killed in cover.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. boffin—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—for his education about ballistics. I shall address his second point in just a moment. First, let me explain why I am taking so many interventions. As hon. Members know, I have always believed that sensible interventions add value to the debate. It is not my intention to delay the House unduly.
I shall now answer some of the points that have been made about why I, along with the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luffy, have tabled new clause 6. The Bill is not about whether or not we should permit the killing of foxes, although the debate sometimes strays into that territory; it is about the process that should be used to cull foxes. I cannot place too much emphasis on that distinction, which is crucial to our debate. I would like to believe that hon. Members on both sides of the argument support the hon. Member for Worcester in his desire to ban inhumane and barbaric activities from the countryside. It goes without saying that there is a need for definition and that is the grey area that we are discussing today.
Nevertheless, the debate is not about whether or not foxes should be killed. All three major political parties in the United Kingdom accept that, in certain circumstances, there is justification for killing foxes. That point was recorded on a number of occasions in Standing Committee. In that context, the entire debate revolves around how it should be done.
Let me explain what gun packs are and how they operate as that is fundamental to the new clause.

Mr. Hancock: Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that hounding an animal across the countryside and allowing it to be torn apart by dogs is not barbaric?

Mr. Öpik: Once again, I am referring only to gun packs—[Interruption.] I shall give way to my hon. Friend so that he can clarify his point.

Mr. Hancock: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is quite correct. He must stick to the new clause.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. He was making a point about the style of death involved and suggesting that shooting animals could lead to a fox dying a pretty barbaric death. I was trying to draw a comparison between what happens when an animal is shot and possibly wounded, and what happens when an animal is chased across the landscape by hounds and then torn apart in an obscene and barbaric way.

Mr. Öpik: I do not want to deviate too much from the new clause, but as I always try to answer direct questions directly, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I take 30 seconds to address my hon. Friend's point. No doubt we shall return to the specific issue that he raised about hunting with hounds and killing foxes when we debate other clauses and amendments.
In my view, however, the emotive language that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) used emphasises a problem that we have had throughout the debate. The debate tends to shift from philosophical consideration of the moral right of animals to be treated in a certain way into the domain of feelings and emotions. I do not blame my hon. Friend for having

feelings and emotions on this matter, but I believe that it is unhelpful to shift from one to the other in the process of a logical argument.

Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I see that you would like me to move on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall give way, and take the risk that the intervention will be regarded as out of order if it concerns hunting with hounds.

11 am

Mr. Colvin: My intervention concerns shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned the Scott Henderson report. I refer the hon. Gentleman to that report, because I believe that it answers the question that he was asked. The Scott Henderson report, to which members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals contributed, concluded that any method of controlling foxes would involve some cruelty, whether it was hunting, shooting, trapping, gassing, snaring or poisoning—some of which methods were illegal anyway—but that, of those methods of control, hunting involved less cruelty than any other method. That was confirmed by the Phelps report of 1997.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are again going very wide of the mark.

Mr. Öpik: I remind hon. Members on all sides of the debate that when we eventually discuss other groups of amendments, we can have a full debate on this subject in order and to your satisfaction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Livsey: I want to concentrate on the point that my hon. Friend is making. References to the Scott Henderson report and speech do not address the fact that, in the part of the world that we come from, there has been widespread planting of softwoods since 1951, and in some parts, the woodland is so dense that foxes can be controlled only with gun packs.

Mr. Öpik: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which provides me with a convenient way in which to return to my main arguments.
Before our little canter through hunting with hounds, I was about to describe, for the benefit of the House, what gun packs mean. The response that I have had from less rural areas suggests to me that there is a public perception that fox hunting means putting on a red coat, sitting on a horse and chasing off into the countryside with a sherry in one's hand, until some poor fox gets torn to pieces by hounds. However that may be in certain parts of the United Kingdom—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To return to a serious point—the point that I was making in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said—I am anxious that all wild mammals should be dispatched as humanely as possible. New clause 6 speaks of gun packs being registered with any fox control association. Will he explain how that association is likely to be constituted? I am very worried lest packs of cowboys travel around the country, wounding foxes.

Mr. Öpik: That is a useful and valid intervention, and I shall answer it briefly now, in the belief that I can return


to the subject if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we debate another group of amendments. I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester in his desire to reform the process of hunting, and I believe that the creation of a regulatory authority will be a crucial element in such reform—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not reform—abolition."] I would attest to the House that abolition is an extreme version of reform.
For the effective implementation of my proposal in new clause 6, it would be very helpful—perhaps essential—to have a regulatory authority that had the trust of the majority of people on both sides of the debate. I do not pretend that, even with the proposal in new clause 6, we could necessarily satisfy the requirements of the extremists on either side in this debate, but I would be satisfied if the regulatory authority had the confidence and trust of the House and of the general public, many of whom are sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Worcester is trying to do.
I shall now define gun packs and what they do. In essence, a gun pack consists of a group of individuals, with a pack of hounds, who go out usually into quite inhospitable, hilly terrain, where it would not be easy to use horses or any approach other than travel on foot, to locate foxes and shoot them. The hounds come into the process because they are sent in to flush from cover the foxes, which are then shot, usually by a fairly large number of individuals bearing shotguns.
It is clear to me that, in Montgomeryshire, where I have had most experience of observing these matters, gun packs are well-organised groups. They tend not to practise other types of fox hunting, such as hunting on horseback—or, indeed, running to ground and digging out, which is yet another process that we are likely to discuss in a future debate. Gun packs tend to consist of non-professionals—usually farmers. Often there is a hunt master, who exercises a professional or semi-professional capacity during the hunt and, usually, looks after the pack.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a distinction between sport and control. My answer to the question, "Why do they do it? Is it a sport?", is that gun packs' primary motive is not sporting, but a genuine belief that what they do is an effective way in which to control the local fox population.
There is a secondary element, but it is not as much sporting as social. Many people who participate in gun packs live extremely remote lives. They are very isolated, and the opportunity to get together as gun packs—indeed, as foot packs running foxes to ground—forms part of their rural culture. I am pretty convinced that they do not go out with the primary desire to practise what they do as a sport. I am sure that they enjoy some aspects of it, but I have never observed blood lust, and much of the time the interest is more to count the number of foxes that they have got in a year. That is the crucial statistic for gun packs. Their main concern is to consider the number of foxes that the pack caught during the year, rather than the nature of the killing, or how the fox reacted when it was shot.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has made the very good point that although, for people living in remote areas, the hunt is an agreeable and convivial gathering, it is essentially for the extremely important purpose of preventing expansion of the fox population, which greatly

damages the interests and prosperity of farmers, who are the sole guardians and backbone of the economic situation in the uplands. Will the hon. Gentleman reinforce that point? This is not some sort of love-in; it is an absolutely essential utilitarian operation.

Mr. Öpik: That is a completely fair economic analysis of what the gun packs—I emphasise that I am talking about gun packs—regard as their primary role. The sheep farming industry is the backbone of many of these areas, and they are densely populated by sheep. As the hon. Member for Workington said, unquestionably, foxes take lambs. They also take chickens. Anyone who lives or works in, or represents, a rural constituency knows that. We could debate the numbers, and there is an interesting debate on the percentage of animals taken by foxes, but it is beyond debate that foxes take farm animals.

Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Farmers Union has said that between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of lambs in hill farms suffer because of foxes? Outdoor-reared pigs also suffer. I suspect that many of those hon. Members who are opposed to fox hunting are in favour of outdoor farrowing, but it is meals on wheels for the local fox—as the piglets appear, they are eaten.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is correct, although I do not think that I would have used the same terminology—perhaps the foxes in mid-Wales are not as calculating in their activities.
Gun packs are regarded by the farming unions and farmers as an effective and humane way in which to control the fox population. I believe that such arguments have persuaded the hon. Member for Worcester to include gun packs in his Bill, for which I applaud him. Between 100 and 150 gun packs operate in Wales, and there are others in Scotland, Cumbria and the west country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows a great deal about gun packs, and his explanation is extremely helpful to the House. Can he say how many times a gun pack kills a fox—that is, the hounds kill the fox before it has broken cover? How many times is the fox, having been flushed out of cover by the hounds and outrun the hunters, marksmen and the shooters, killed by hounds in the open?

Mr. Öpik: The overwhelming proportion of foxes that are killed after being run from cover are, in fact, shot. A small proportion escape—perhaps 5 per cent. to 10 per cent, although I stress that that is an estimate based on my soundings and could be off the mark. Unfortunately, some of those foxes are wounded before they run clear of the gun pack.
Labour Members have often said that I am being used. I emphasise that I do not appreciate the implications of that accusation, which is that my comments are designed to detain the House so that the Bill falls. Whatever hon. Members may think of my argument, I ask them to credit me with the integrity to defend the interests of the people who elected me to the House and to discuss as well as I can matters that are of great importance to them. I shall not respond further to such accusations, except to say that Labour Members grossly underestimate the sincerity of my intention in making these comments.
The Bill, as drafted, presents difficulties to gun packs. Although it would permit them to operate, unless it is modified, there will be a double danger that the suffering endured by a fox will be increased. New clause 6 states:
A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if as a member of a gun pack:

(a) he hunts foxes with dogs for the purpose of culling, whether or not foxes are killed by dogs in the process, or
(b) he hunts an injured fox in order to kill it with dogs where it is reasonably believed by the person in control of those dogs to be the most effective method of killing it."

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman will lose his seat for filibustering.

Mr. Öpik: I hear the hon. Gentleman say that I will lose my seat. If I lose my seat for trying to act in what I believe to be the best interests of my constituents, I am willing to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I am not going to give way yet, although I shall in a minute.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is being intimidated by cries from across the Chamber? Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am quite sure that all hon. Members are well able to look after themselves.

Mr. Öpik: Nevertheless, I thank various hon. Members for their moral support. [Interruption.] My point is important, and I think that it behoves hon. Members to listen. In tabling new clause 6, I wanted to modify the Bill profoundly, which—given the way in which the Bill was amended in Committee and what I learned during those debates—I felt was appropriate.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a neighbouring constituency, for giving way. Last night, I talked to the master of a hill pack that operates in both our constituencies, who told me that the Bill would be absolutely devastating for the economy and wildlife in the areas in it hunts. I urge the hon. Gentleman to continue putting his case forcefully and to ignore comments from Labour Members.

Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Sometimes foxes are not killed cleanly—they escape, having been wounded but not killed. If the fox cannot be pursued by hounds, it will suffer a period of agony before it dies, either from blood loss, damage to the vital organs, an inability to hunt prey or disease. I have seen the corpse of a fox that had escaped the hounds but had died of starvation because the lower part of its jaw had been shot away while it was running away. If hounds are allowed to pursue the fox when the intent is genuinely to kill it

with a gun, that would, I suggest, massively reduce the suffering of a fox that had been wounded, but would otherwise escape, as happens in a minority of cases.
More importantly, given that the intention of the Bill is to reduce the pain and suffering inflicted on wild mammals, allowing the hounds to finish the job—as long as that is sensibly regulated—is an entirely reasonable desire for the gun packs to have. That is one reason why a regulatory authority must be trusted and effective, as there could be abuse—every hunting pack in the United Kingdom could suddenly register itself as a gun pack and carry on regardless. A code of practice must be well defined, so that that does not happen.
Some hon. Members may believe that my proposals would weaken or even wreck the Bill. They should consider them from a gun pack's point of view. The overwhelming majority—perhaps all—of the individuals I have met who are involved in gun packs are sincere in their belief that shooting foxes is the best way in which to proceed and to control the fox populations in the areas where they operate. They do not spend their time celebrating the death of a fox and they are not particularly interested in shifting their tactics from shooting foxes to tracking them down with hounds—that is an entirely different approach.
By including new clause 6 in the Bill, we would signal our confidence that people in the countryside act in good faith and that those who are part of gun packs are, by and large, honourable people who are trying to do what they believe is best for the protection of livestock and in the interests of agriculture. The House must debate those issues. I believe that the Bill's measures relating to gun packs are better than nothing, but they do not work in the context of the intentions of the hon. Member for Worcester. Obviously, I would rather have a completely different approach to reforming hunting from that of the hon. Member for Worcester, but we can return to that later.
I believe that my proposal would make the gun packs work. It would be easier to include it now rather than letting the matter go to the courts, which would have to settle all sorts of precedents about whether a gun pack acted intentionally or unintentionally in allowing hounds to chase a fox. More than anything, it clarifies the point that the hon. Member for Worcester is not seeking to curtail the activities of those who sincerely share his view that culling should be done in the most humane way.

Mr. Gray: I have a point that I fear the hon. Gentleman may not make. New clause 6 fits neatly with clause 3 of the Bill as amended in Committee. Would it not be sensible to ask the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) to accept it, as it is in much the same spirit as the clause that he drafted?

Mr. Öpik: I would be delighted if the hon. Member for Worcester would accept new clause 6. I have made it known to the Speaker that I would like a separate vote on new clause 6 because it is so different from the general intent of the Bill.
Gun packs are not the preserve of the idle rich nor regarded as a sport by those who use them. They involve no blood lust; it is just how we do things in some parts of the countryside. Whatever happens to the rest of the Bill, new clause 6 and the issue of gun packs are so


distinct from the general thrust of the Bill that they deserve a separate vote. The House's judgment on new clause 6 may be different from its judgment on the Bill. In requesting a separate vote, I am highlighting the desperate worries of many people who have little interest in the rest of our debates, but simply ask for the right to pursue their traditional and, in their view, effective approach to controlling foxes in an area where they believe it is not simply a pastime, but an agricultural way of life.

Kate Hoey: It is with great pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). If some of my colleagues think that there has been filibustering this morning, I refer them to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who told me earlier that he spoke for three hours to block a private Member's Bill that he felt strongly about. While some hon. Members may be intending to filibuster, the number of interventions is in the nature of a private Member's Bill and reflects how this draconian legislation has been advanced. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee—I was not on it—who tried, in the emotional atmosphere of putting through draconian legislation, to have a genuine debate.

Mr. Garnier: rose—

Kate Hoey: I shall take an early intervention, but not many more.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for taking an intervention from a member of the Standing Committee. Does she accept that one reason why so many hon. Members wish to intervene is that the Bill is a different creature from that which we debated on Second Reading? This 14-clause Bill bears almost no resemblance to the original Bill.

Mr. Hogg: Clause 1 was removed.

Mr. Garnier: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, clause 1 was removed. It is a question not of filibustering but of what the new Bill is all about.

Kate Hoey: There is a genuine problem in that the Bill has come back in a very different form from the Bill that went into Committee. There are many new clauses because many hon. Members have been thinking about how we can make unworkable, unenforceable legislation more relevant to the lives of the people who will be most affected by it.
I shall have more to say later on other new clauses, but I have a few words on this one. I agree with the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who moved the new clause, for the exemption of national parks. If he can put a good case for such an exemption, it is clear that there are other areas in respect of which people can put up good cases for exemptions. His new clause shows that the whole Bill is deeply flawed.
I object to the idea—I am sure, knowing him, that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington did not really mean this—that it is all right to kill animals with dogs as long as people are not riding horses and wearing red coats. Some people—I do not include my hon. Friend—who

have not looked deeply into the issue, are motivated by the feeling that people in red coats on horses are people whom we should not like because they are part of an era that we want to see no more of. I resent that. I have said many times that I do not hunt, but I know people who do. It is difficult to be in the House and not know someone who hunts. I do not believe that someone who hunts is de facto a cruel person. The Bill's proponents have no right to say that they are cruel people, or they do not believe in animal welfare.
I shall now move on to the new clause.

Mr. Leigh: Would it not help our debates if both sides were more honest and those who support hunting admitted that it not only culls foxes and is a part of country life but a sport, and those who oppose fox hunting admitted that, if it is abolished, foxes would still have to be culled, perhaps in a more cruel way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady did as she said she would and returned to the new clause.

Kate Hoey: Those of us who feel that the debate has become polarised and sterile want some honesty in it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who knows about mink hunting. She represents the views of the people who live where mink hunting takes place.
New clause 25 deals with the licensing of terrier work. I am concerned about some of the things that happen in terrier work attached to hunting. I pay tribute to the National Working Terrier Federation, which has tried hard to get people to understand what it does. The National Working Terrier Federation produced a document, "Hunting with Dogs. A Consultation Paper", which it has just brought up to date. It is important to understand what terriers do because, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, all parties agree that foxes must be controlled; we are discussing the process. The involvement of terriers is part of the process.
It is clear that, in some areas and instances, the use of terriers is necessary. That does not mean that we cannot control the way that they work and ensure that any malpractice, particularly in the more unofficial use of terriers, can be controlled. The federation was founded in 1984 to promote the efficient and humane use of working terriers for pest control purposes. It is made up of member working terrier clubs, affiliated organisations and individual supporters, and its code of practice and conduct for terrier work is accepted as a measure of good practice, and recognised by most practising terrier men as more comprehensive than any other.
Clearly, no one in an organisation can control all its members. I am especially concerned, now that there are more foxes in our inner cities and other urban areas, about the actions of some of the thugs who have attached themselves to the idea of what they see as a real form of sport and are moving into the inner cities and using dogs to go after foxes at night.
People may say about me, "What does an urban Member know about hunting?" Actually, I know an awful lot about it, but I shall not go into my background again now. Besides, we must face the fact that, in inner cities


such as London, foxes are becoming a major pest and will have to be controlled. We shall have to find ways of dealing with them.
11.30 am
I do not suggest, as the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) implied, that we should have a Vauxhall hunt, but we shall have to consider the issue seriously and find ways of dealing with it. At first, people in inner cities are happy to see a fox, and they encourage it, but within three or four days, two weeks at most, they see the reality of what foxes can do. The House will have to address that problem in some way at some stage.
Our new clause would allow foxes to be dug out only under licensing arrangements—arrangements that we should have to work out with the National Working Terrier Federation. There is no point in trying to enact legislation to control some of the practices now taking place in the countryside unless we get the vast numbers of people now engaged in those practices to work with us—and that has not been done.
We shall talk more about that aspect later, but it is nonsense that a piece of draconian legislation can be going through the House without one Select Committee report or any independent inquiry since 1951, and without any real consultation with the people, whether one likes them or not, whose lives have been involved with those activities and whose jobs could be at risk. That is the reason—a reason that has nothing to do with filibustering or with the strength of people's feelings—why the Bill will not work and cannot be allowed to go through.
New clause 25 refers to licensing arrangements involving the Secretary of State. I am afraid that, with the Bill, we are giving the Home Secretary a huge amount of work to do, whether it goes through in its present form or in the form that we suggest—or at all.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Laughter.] I am sorry, I meant the hon. Lady. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for giving way to me. Will she confirm that the overwhelming majority of people involved in fox hunting, whether they hunt to eradicate a pest or for sport, fully support regulations on terrier work? That includes the Masters of Fox Hounds Association. They all want to eradicate what, unfortunately, does happen in a small number of cases.

Kate Hoey: I forgive the hon. Gentleman for his mistaken impression of my sex.
Before Second Reading, I was not involved with any of the lobby groups on either side but, since then, I have been surprised and impressed by the genuine willingness of people who hunt to consider measures to control some of the excesses, and to recognise that the number one priority must be animal welfare. I wish that some—only some—of the people who are adamant about banning hunting with dogs really thought about the subject from an animal welfare point of view as much as the hunters do.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: No, I shall not give way any more, because I want to finish this section of my speech.
Obviously, there must be discussion about what is to go into the licence. Our suggestions are not prescriptive; they are simply some ideas:
The conditions attaching to licences for terrier work shall be established by the authority, but shall include—

(a) a prohibition on the use of hard or baiting dogs;
(b) a provision that foxes bolted using terriers … shall normally be despatched with a suitable firearm and by no other means; and
(c) a requirement"

that is already happening in terrier packs associated with some of the better hunts—
for all dogs used for this purpose to be fitted with electronic locators to establish their position underground".

Mr. Gray: I entirely support the principle behind the new clause, but may I suggest two amendments that the hon. Lady might want to suggest if the Bill goes to another place? First, she uses the expression "terrier packs", but that is inaccurate, because there is no such thing as a terrier pack. I believe that, under MFHA rules, one can use one terrier, or two, on some occasions, so that expression may need amending.
Secondly, subsection (4)(b) of the new clause refers to foxes having been "bolted" before being dispatched. That is an unfortunate juxtaposition of words, because one cannot bolt a fox. More often, a fox will be dispatched having been cornered in the earth rather than having bolted.

Kate Hoey: That shows how difficult it is to deal with a complex and complicated issue in a sensible way. In other debates, we shall talk about independent inquiries, and so on, because they represent the way forward.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: I shall, because I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman before—but this must be the last time.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because I wanted to find out whether she had had any intelligence from the Home Office about what is happening in the review of people's ability to own guns. Clearly, that is crucial. There may be legislation telling people that they will have to use guns to control foxes, yet the Home Office may shortly say that most people will not be allowed to have rifles or shotguns.

Kate Hoey: I have been much too busy in the past two days to have discussions with any of my colleagues on that issue.
I support the range of new clauses. They all have different aspects and claim rights for particular areas and groups. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to vote on some of them separately, because it is important that we should be able to register separate votes on separate new clauses.

Mr. Hogg: I want to say a few words about new clause 7, but before I do so I shall repeat what I said on Second Reading: I am whole-heartedly against the Bill. I oppose it root and branch. I do so because I think that it is a monstrous infringement of civil rights. That is the basis on which I oppose it. None the less, I have to contemplate the possibility that the House may approve the Bill and


send it to another place. On that basis, and that basis alone, I have tabled many new clauses and amendments, and wish to speak to them.
I shall begin by commenting on what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about new clause 1. In that new clause, he has accepted the principle that it is important to retain fox hunting for some classes of animal husbandry, but he has confined that exemption to sheep farming. I know of no reason so to confine it. Once one accepts the principle that it is right to use fox hunting as a means of controlling foxes preying on livestock, it is wrong in principle to confine the exemption to sheep fanning. That is why I tabled new clause 7, which would extend the range of husbandry for which fox hunting may be retained.

Mr. Gray: I find myself in the curious position of having my name alongside that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in proposing new clause 1. It refers specifically to sheep in the context of national parks because the largest animal group in agriculture is sheep. I have not discussed this with the hon. Gentleman, but I dare say that, if the Bill goes elsewhere, we might consider other amendments to extend the clause into other areas of agriculture, such as pigs or poultry.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wise in what he says, and I imagine that the hon. Member for Workington will pay great attention. However, two other problems are associated with new clause 1.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend a problem with the new clause? The key question is whether it applies to the New Forest in my constituency. Although it is not defined as a national park in accordance with the 1947 legislation, the New Forest heritage area enjoys the benefits of planning policy guidance note 7. In other words, in planning terms, it has the benefits of a national park. If the clause does not apply to the New Forest, why on earth not?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which brings me to my second criticism of the new clause. It is reflected in my new clause 7, one of many which the Madam Speaker was good enough to select. No principle that I can readily identify justifies confining the exemption to national parks. The principle is whether we need fox hunting to maintain good husbandry. Whether the land is in a national park is neither here nor there. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and the hon. Member for Workington reflect on that point, they might like to extend new clause 1 to provide an exemption in respect of all animal husbandry and to remove that part of it which confines it to national parks.
It is dangerous to confine the clause to national parks. By the nature of things, fox hounds run. They are no respecters of the boundaries of national parks, and it would be a total nonsense if people had an exemption for fox hunting while they remained within the national park but committed a criminal offence as soon as they crossed the boundary.

Mr. Tim Collins: May I suggest another reason why the new clause may have been

tabled by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? He knows that the Bill is about as popular as the black death in the Lake district. In my constituency, 80 per cent. of votes at the last general election were cast for candidates publicly committed to opposing such legislation. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the hon. Gentleman does not succeed with the new clause, he should, by right, oppose the Bill in its entirety?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is wholly right. The hon. Member for Workington—with whom I have served in this House for nearly 20 years—is a man of principle. By proposing new clause 1, he is conceding the principle of fox hunting. He has tried to restrict it, for the reasons that he has explained, but he has admitted the justification of principle.
I have talked about husbandry and national parks, and I wish to record my dismay that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not in his place to advise the House on the matter. I also record my dismay that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for national parks and the environment, is not in his place to assist the House on the application of new clause 1.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to the nonsense of permitting hunting merely in national parks. While they are running, hounds are no observers of whether or not the land over which they are running is in a national park. In addition, the boundaries of individual farms do not coincide with national park boundaries. Is it right that lambs and sheep in a national park should have a degree of defence against foxes as predators, while those located just outside the national park should not have the same defence?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a yet more subtle point than perhaps he fully appreciates. Within a national park, there will be a number of farms—some with sheep, some not. What is being contemplated in new clause 1 is that, provided that the objective is the preservation of sheep, no offence is committed. As my hon. Friend rightly observes, fox hounds are no respecters of boundaries. They could cross from a farm within the national park where there are sheep to a farm within the national park where there are no sheep. The latter farm will probably have no protection.

Mr. Garnier: Surely the problem is not the ability of the hound to ascertain the boundary of a national park, but the fox, which is the pest and attacks livestock. The fox is no respecter of boundaries either.

Mr. Hogg: That is quite right. The trouble is that it is not the fox which is prosecuted, but people like my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend has dealt with matters of principle in relation to the new clauses and the other clauses that provide exemptions from the prohibition of hunting. Does not clause 2(b) already reflect the principle that he seeks? The Bill is not against the hunting of mammals, and it expressly permits the hunting of mammals provided that the mammal is a


rabbit or one of the many types of rodent. It also provides for the concept of dogs or hounds running from land on which one is permitted to hunt to neighbouring land. Will he develop that point in support of his argument?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. The first goes to the question of principle. What distinction of principle is there between rabbits and rodents on the one hand and foxes on the other? I see none. I suspect that, in the Labour party, there is a dislike of fox hunters, but that is not a distinction of principle—it is an unworthy prejudice.

Mr. John Hayes: That point has been made by a broad coalition of people who oppose the Bill. People with a long history of concern for wildlife have picked up on that inconsistency. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and my old friend James Barrington, who has written wisely on this matter. Those inconsistencies have brought together a wide range of people to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is no accident that every Conservative Member of Parliament representing Lincolnshire takes the view articulated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is particularly peculiar that there should be a suggestion that rats and rabbits can be hunted but not foxes, when anyone who lives in the countryside and has seen sheep attacked by a fox knows that the fox is the most dangerous of the predators in the group?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. Two principles emerge from what he has said. First, there is no conceptual difference between foxes on the one hand and rodents and rabbits on the other hand. Secondly, one must infer from what my hon. Friend has said that there is a great deal of ignorance among Labour Members of the facts.
I shall refer briefly to new clause 6 and then move on to the grouping. Before doing so, I shall make a final observation on new clauses 1 and 7. If the House were foolish enough to pass an exemption that had an application only within national parks, what would be the position of farmers in the immediately adjoining areas? There would be a high degree of displacement, over a period, of foxes from within national parks to adjoining farms.
I move on to new clause 6—

Mr. Ian Bruce: Before my right hon. and learned Friend does so, I have a query for him. I am grappling with the Bill and I want to use his expertise. In new clause 7, my right hon. and learned Friend has the term that someone
uses a dog for the control of foxes".
Is there an evidential link? If there are 100 people and 100 dogs in a field and a hound goes off and kills a fox, how is that hound being used by an individual? I can see no evidential link. If I were a magistrate or judge trying

to work out how that person had used the dog when the dog was merely following its instinct, where would I find an evidential link?

Mr. Hogg: If one were sitting in a judicial capacity, one would ask what measure of control the individual being prosecuted retained over the hound or dog in question. If it could be said that there was real control over the dog or hound by the person being prosecuted, there would be "use" for the purpose of new clause 7 and, no doubt, that of the hon. Member for Workington.
New clause 6 relates to gun packs. I have no personal experience of gun packs, although I do know of them. I am framing my remarks in the context that I am against the Bill overall but, if we must have it, we need to retain gun packs. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has been good enough to acknowledge already that, if gun packs are to be retained, as has been emphasised already by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), those who shoot foxes with a shotgun must use a heavy load of shot.
I have shot a good deal in my life. I do not shoot as much now as I used to—mainly because I am going deaf and not for any reason of principle. I have seen foxes shot at and shot. It is a dismal performance. Frequently, foxes are wounded only to escape and die of gangrene. I hope that anyone who follows the arguments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire on gun packs will recognise the vital importance of using a heavy load of shot.
I say to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—not in a critical spirit—that I am cautious about the licensing concepts that he has embodied in his new clause. I am against excessive regulation and I do not know what particular authority the associations to which he has referred may possess.
All right, if we must have the Bill, we have gun packs. However, the principle that justifies gun packs also justifies fox hunting. I am much in favour of fox hunting in preference to other forms of control.

Mr. Öpik: The right hon. and learned Gentleman having raised the issue of licensing, let me say that I accept that there would be a great deal of work to do to make it workable, effective and, more than anything, fair. That would be the debate to which we should move once we had completed work on the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Gray: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I merely want—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There cannot be an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Gray: My right hon. and learned Friend leapt up and then resumed his place. I was keen, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep myself in order.
My right hon. and learned Friend was talking about the use of shotguns for culling foxes after they had been flushed, using the Welsh gun packs. Does he agree that there is a significant and worrying trend, which is that people are talking about marksmen using high-powered rifles for the culling of foxes after they have been flushed out of deep cover by gun packs? That form of culling would be almost impossible to carry out, especially at night. There would be significant difficulties, at least in Wales, where the risk of ricochet could lead to inadvertent injury to bystanders. We should all be concerned about that.

Mr. Hogg: I do not pretend to have a knowledge of gun packs. Therefore, what I am about to say is not an informed view. However, I think that it is probably right. I should not think that rifles could be used safely in the context of a gun pack because of the long range of rifles. I possess a .22 and I am careful where I use it. I should think that, with gun packs, one could use only shotguns with a heavy load because of the limited range. Rifles are to be used in a wholly different context—for example, shooting foxes at night under licence. I should not recommend—I do not think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire does—using rifles with gun packs.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend is again touching on a point of principle about the role of the fox, and in my view the fox is vermin. In areas that are not as rural as many of the areas in his constituency, such as my constituency in Surrey, there is the problem of the urban fox. It would be helpful if he were to clarify the issue. There must be varied ways of controlling the fox population. Sometimes, those who oppose hunting foxes with hounds forget that the fox is vermin. They have no answer when questioned about how they would cull the fox. It needs to be made clear that the objective is to keep down the fox population. There is no reason in principle why hunting with hounds should not be one such method.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There must be a variety of ways in which we confront the problem of foxes where it occurs. I cannot say that I have addressed the subject of how we should deal with foxes in urban areas. Clearly, that would not involve the use of fox hounds, at least to any measurable extent. Nor, I suppose, could it involve the use of firearms of any sort. I suppose that we come down to trapping and poisoning, neither of which is an attractive option.
I move on to the grouping of the new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make a respectful observation. Before I do so, however, I should say that the entirety of the clause that we are debating is different from the clause that was discussed on Second Reading. Clause 1 was rewritten in Committee. It follows from that that the House collectively has never debated the contents of clause 1 as it now stands.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is making an important point of principle, and I should be grateful for his help. It seems that clause 3(2) shows that the promoter and supporters of the Bill recognise that the use of dogs or hounds is necessary for controlling foxes, and that their complaint is the way in which they are used for controlling. Does my right hon. and learned Friend

agree with that? Does he regard that as the only substitute for the original gun pack clause that was in the original Bill?
What would my right hon. and learned Friend say about the fact that, as would seem to be entirely sensible and proper—I support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—we need gun packs but that they will no doubt chop or kill a lot of foxes in cover, which raises once again the entire question of principle in relation to the Bill?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend makes two important points. Anybody who studies the Bill seriously will see that, time and again, there is compromise on the principle. The Bill explicitly recognises the right of people, for a variety of reasons, to kill foxes and, indeed, other wild mammals. Nobody has been able to provide a reasonable explanation why a distinction should be made between fox hunting, shooting foxes or the destruction and killing of other wild mammals. There is no difference of principle.
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is flattering the supporters of the Bill, because they would not admit any compromise. The Home Office has told the Bill's supporters, "The Bill you've drafted is absurd, and to make it marginally less so, you shall have to move new clauses." That process has exposed the intellectual incredibility of the Bill, to which my right hon. and learned Friend just drew attention.
My final observation is on voting. I made the point that clause 1 has been entirely redrawn and has never been debated by the House collectively. This group contains at least four separate subjects. New clause 1 and new clause 7—

12 noon

Mr. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not want in any way to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to reconsider, before one of my colleagues moves the same Question. The minority has every right to filibuster, but the majority has the right to put the Question after the debate has continued for a reasonable time. I hope that you will agree that that point is rapidly approaching.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly bear in mind, as the debate proceeds, the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the way in which you reacted but, with great respect, point out that we have debated the Bill for only two and a half hours. The first portion of the debate was taken up—quite properly—by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in moving his new clause. We are debating a wide group of new clauses, covering a number of specific and different issues, and would wish


to vote on a number of those, because of the different subjects that they cover. I urge you to allow us just a little longer to debate these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. That is precisely why I have allowed time for further debate. I suggest that we now get on with the debate.

Sir Richard Body: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have not touched on new clause 3, which is of great importance to an important minority. The subject was touched on only briefly in Standing Committee and on Second Reading, and it is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House; we have dealt thoroughly with new clause 3.

Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your clarification. Am I correct in my understanding that you have said that, because of the large number of different subjects in this group, there will be an opportunity for separate votes, because for those of us who—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has already been dealt with.

Mr. Hogg: It might be helpful to draw attention to the different subjects covered by this group. New clause 1 was moved by the hon. Member for Workington. I tabled new clause 7. I would have no complaint about there not being a vote on new clause 7.
New clause 3, to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) spoke so ably, deals with mink. It is a free-standing subject.
New clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, deals with gun packs. Again, it is a free-standing subject. I support what he said about the desirability of a separate vote on that.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) tabled new clause 25, which deals with the terrier pack issue. That is also a free-standing issue. I suggest—it is, of course, at the discretion of the Chair—that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allow four separate votes to cover the four distinct issues contained within this group.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I wish to respond to the points that have been made this morning and, in so doing, shall be as brief as possible.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the point about national parks was dealt with adequately in Committee, but I wish to re-emphasise the point about the stock losses that are alleged to be suffered in that area. The number of sheep lost is nothing compared with the number of foxes lost through malnutrition, starvation and hypothermia. That is where the priority should be—[Interruption.)

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Foster: I have only just started my speech. I intend to be brief and I shall therefore take no interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington argued that shooting in the national park areas when hunting with dogs—

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. More than a quarter of a million people are affected by the new clauses. During his main speech on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) took hardly any interventions, and now he will take none. That shows his arrogance and his unwillingness to listen to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for individual hon. Members to decide whether to take interventions. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Foster: Conservative Members pretend to represent the countryside, whereas we all know that they do not.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a discourtesy to the Chair for an hon. Member to turn his back on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair will decide what constitutes a discourtesy.

Mr. Foster: In the summer months, when hunting on the fells does not take place with dogs, shooting is the only method available for fox control, and that is when the tourist season is at its height. I therefore dismiss the argument that dogs are necessary and that an unnecessary risk will be imposed on walkers in the national parks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) dealt with new clause 3 and made a point about mink. Rampaging through water courses and that type of environment will clearly do spectacular damage to wildlife. Interestingly, the new clause that my hon. Friend presented to the House is so carefully drafted that it acknowledges that point in subsection (4), which says that if damage is done to wildlife, the Environment Agency should look at other ways of dealing with mink. If there are other ways of dealing with mink, which save dogs going along, let us have them. People will then not need to hunt with dogs.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) made a prolonged speech. In yet another cameo appearance, he turned up briefly, made his speech and skittled off, as he did throughout the Committee stage. When I questioned him about that, he confessed that he was sitting on two Committees at the same time. That shows how much importance he placed on this Bill's Committee stage, and it is a disgrace that he is not in the Chamber now to hear my response.
The hon. Gentleman spoke nonsense about the Bill being entirely new. If one original clause is split into six new clauses, the number of clauses increases, but that hardly makes a new Bill; it simply plays with the format. He also said that we rushed through our business in Committee, yet when I tabled a new sittings motion at the 10th sitting to sit throughout the night and again the following night, Conservative Members skittled off within two hours. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) intervened on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and paid tribute to the


Chair. He should have done that at the end of the Committee proceedings, but he was not there and left it to just one Conservative Member. That is not acceptable.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention in the House that an hon. Member gives way when he mentions another hon. Member? The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) mentioned my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), so should he not give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are conventions in the House, but it is for the hon. Member who is speaking to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Foster: With regard to—

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I have said that I will not give way.
Conservative Members complained that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is not present. They might like to know that he is attending a conference in Paris, discussing global agriculture. I should have thought that the friends of the countryside on the Conservative Benches would applaud his attendance, but the fact that they denigrate it shows how much they care about the British countryside—their remarks are hollow and a sham.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire thanked me for giving him an exemption, or, as he put it, granting him a favour. After listening to his contribution, he can rest assured that I shall grant him no more favours.
Gun packs will be allowed to shoot foxes, but allowing their dogs to chase foxes to the point of exhaustion would constitute fox hunting under another guise, which is unacceptable, and such a provision would probably be abused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) discussed terrier work, which is one of the most objectionable aspects of hunting with dogs. Masters of fox hounds have told me that they do not like the fact that terriers are stuffed down holes to flush out a fox. If those who organise and take part in hunts and get pleasure from killing wild mammals find terrier work objectionable, so much for the middle ground. Dogs become involved in fights underground or suffocate, and it is unacceptable for any hon. Member to condone such a practice.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I have said that I will not give way.
I urge the House to vote against new clauses 1, 3, 6, 7, 19 and 25.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. John Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has not tabled any amendments. He refuses to accept any amendments, which suggests that he has not listened to the debate and is not prepared to admit that the Bill is defective in any way. Is that in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Greenway: As I was saying, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. The Bill may fail to make further progress, but we must debate the amendments because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, it may progress to the other place.
The issues raised in the new clauses demonstrate the impracticality of the Bill's central objective to ban all hunting with dogs. It is open to question whether the measures proposed in the new clauses would meet all the obvious and real concerns, but clearly the Bill would be better if at least some of them were accepted.
As was made clear on Second Reading, the Bill poses an unacceptable restraint on personal liberty and freedom. It is unwise to criminalise an activity and the tens of thousands of people involved in pursuing that activity. They are law-abiding and decent people who are merely pursuing an activity that has been traditional for generations and which, as the new clauses underline, has a clear purpose—the control of pests, such as the fox and mink, and the conservation of the countryside.
12.15 pm
New clauses 1 and 7 provide an exemption for the need to protect sheep farming or animal husbandry in national parks. A large part of the north Yorkshire moors is national park and lies in my Ryedale constituency. I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) that people in national parks hunt out of necessity. Fox control is crucial to sheep farming, which is an important part of agriculture within all our national parks, which are traditional areas for lambing.
Only this week, a constituent of mine—Lorne Wilkinson, a sheep farmer who has said that I can name him—wrote a moving letter to me about his experiences of using methods of control other than hunting with dogs. While I do not want to detain the House, it is reasonable to mention that on each of the occasions when shooting or snares were used, the result was greater suffering for the fox than would have been the case had dogs been used.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked why new clause 1 includes only sheep. New clause 7 contains the wider definition of animal husbandry. Mr. Wilkinson's experience as a sheep farmer who also has a free-range flock of hens is that the hens, too, are susceptible to the fox and the vixen, sometimes with disastrous results.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) asked why only the national parks are included. New clause 19 deals with similar concerns to those that arise in the national parks, but in the context of the open countryside in general. Although clause 3 effectively grants an exemption for stag hunting, that is of little value when hunting foxes. That matter arises as a direct consequence of the Bill and has been the central issue in the debate this morning.
The Bill recognises the need to use dogs to locate or flush out a fox. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) showed his ignorance of these matters. Locating a fox with a dog is not the controlled and tidy exercise that the Bill suggests. We cannot manage natural instincts quite as precisely as the hon. Gentleman and the sponsors of his Bill pretend. Anti-hunt literature shows that that point is only too well appreciated as it refers to instances of dogs chasing foxes into gardens, public parks, open spaces and, occasionally, on to railway lines. Such an incident occurred in my constituency on Boxing day, when the hounds of the Saltersgate hunt, which hunts on foot in the national park, chased a fox on to the north Yorkshire moors railway line, causing a Boxing day special train to be stopped. The fox was caught and killed instantly by the hounds. Not surprisingly, some of the passengers on the train found that distasteful.
New clause 19 seeks to overcome the Bill's central tenet, because in its present form the Bill outlaws such a practice and it would have been illegal for those dogs to kill the fox, which would have had to be shot instead. That raises the question of public safety, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether the train would have had to be evacuated. I doubt that those who found the incident distasteful would have been reassured by the fox being shot rather than being killed by the dogs.

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is addressing the Bill's central absurdity—the presumption that, somehow or other, shooting a fox is more humane than killing it with hounds. That is the Bill's absurdity, and it is why the measure must fail.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes his own point. My point is that new clause 19 seeks to allow owners and occupiers of land to require the hunt to kill the fox rather than permitting it to be shot. That is the fundamental difference. There is great merit in the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), because the owners and occupiers of land would be responsible for the death or injury of a member of the public or perhaps for a motor accident as a result of activity on land over which they had control. If a landowner is involved in the shooting of foxes, who is liable for death or injury?

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend asks whether shooting is acceptable to the public. He may like to know that when

a golf club in my constituency decided to shoot some foxes in an urban environment, there was a petition and great protest from my constituents. Therefore, shooting is no more acceptable than hunting to the people who complain about hunting.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend's point is self-explanatory.
New clause 19 would improve the Bill and should be supported. I hope that the House will be given an opportunity to vote upon it at the appropriate time.

Mr. Tom King: My intervention relates to new clause 19. Earlier in the debate, it was said that clause 3 allows stag hunting but prohibits fox hunting. I do not think that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who may have been engaged on another matter when that was said, registered any reaction to that. He did not allow any interventions in his speech, but if I had been allowed to intervene, I would have asked him whether he accepted that that interpretation was correct. Can my hon. Friend elicit a response from the Minister or from the Bill's promoter as to whether that is correct?

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I have studied the matter, and I am simply giving my own interpretation. It seems to me that clause 3 would allow stag hunting to continue in that it is conventional that while the dogs—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): To assist the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I should say that clause 3, as amended in Committee, states:
A person does not commit an offence under section 1(1) if he uses a dog to stalk a wild mammal, or to flush it from cover, for the purpose …
(b) of controlling the number of a particular species in a particular area, in order to safeguard the welfare of that species in the area".
I think that that is the point that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is trying to deal with. I should say also—although the Government are neutral on the Bill—that the situation described by the hon. Gentleman is covered in clause 6.

Mr. Greenway: We have now clearly heard the Government's view that clause 3 would allow the hunting of stags. The central point at issue is that stags are shot after having been located by dogs—I do not have stag hunting in my constituency—whereas in fox hunting, rather the fox being shot, it is normal for the hounds to kill the fox. The point that I am dealing with is the impracticality of someone with a pack of hounds or other type of dogs locating a fox and then expecting those dogs to back off while the fox is shot. That clearly will not happen.

Mr. Howarth: I should point out that clause 3(2) would require that the animal be shot rather than dealt with in some other way. Therefore, the position is not quite as described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Greenway: That is precisely the point that I made—the stag will be shot after having been located by dogs. Presumably, the stag would be used as food, potentially for human consumption.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend candidly admitted that there is no stag hunting in his constituency; neither is


there in mine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) asked about the continuance of stag hunting under the Bill. My hon. Friend might apply his mind not only to clause 3(1)(b), which the Minister quoted, but to paragraph (a). Red deer is delicious to eat. That paragraph would permit the stalking of a wild mammal or its flushing from cover for the purpose of
obtaining food for human consumption",
although, as the Minister was perfectly correct in saying, only if the hunter takes reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot. That is precisely what happens with stag hounds in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and in other parts of Devon. Therefore, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has yet to get his head round—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Is it a speech? Those are words.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) has made precisely the point that I was making: to differentiate between locating stags with dogs—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Hounds.

Mr. Greenway: Hounds—as my hon. Friend says—and shooting the stags; and the impracticality of using hounds to locate and flush out a fox, and then requiring that the fox be shot. Common sense tells us that hounds will dispatch the fox with all due speed long before people with guns have arrived.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Like some of my hon. Friends, I am now totally confused about the meaning of clause 3. Like them, I thought that it would permit stag hunting. However, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) shook his head when that provision of the Bill was stated. Will my hon. Friend try to elicit an answer from the Minister or the hon. Member for Worcester on whether clause 3 would or would not allow stag hunting?

Mr. Greenway: The matter is clearly open to interpretation. I am sure that there will be further opportunities for my right hon. and hon. Friends to raise the issue and to seek even further clarification—although one realises the difficulty of doing so when the hon. Member for Worcester refuses to take any interventions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I should like to make a little progress, and deal with the major benefit that would be provided by passing new clause 19.

Mr. Heseltine: I have never hunted in my life, but clause 3(2) states:
Subsection (1) applies to a person only if he takes all reasonable steps to ensure that the wild mammal is shot as soon as possible after it is located or emerges from cover.
However, that could take a significant amount of time because the hounds will have to chase the stag and get it at bay—that is the whole point—where it can be safely shot. The courts will have huge difficulties in trying to interpret whether the shooting took place as quickly as

possible. Either the clause is so loosely drafted as to be impossible, or it does not include the possibility of the stag being shot as quickly as possible. Are there to be marksmen trying to shoot the running stag? That is an indication of the nonsense of the clause.

Mr. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Peter Emery: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to cast your eye over Standing Order No. 36(1) which clearly states that if a closure is granted, it must not infringe the rights of the minority? Five new clauses are being debated, each with an entirely different subject. That means that each subject has been granted slightly under 35 minutes, which certainly does not seem to be fair or proper. The new clauses were taken together for the convenience of the House, but that should not mean that the rights of the minority are infringed. Might I suggest, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we call off the Division and allow the minority a little more than 35 minutes' debate on each new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Standing Order gives the Chair the discretion to decide on these matters, and I have decided that I will accept the closure motion.

Sir Peter Emery: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that you did not cast your eye over Standing Order No. 36(1), so may I have your assurance that before we move on to a further debate, you will do so, so that in future we are certain that the point has been taken on board by the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Bennett: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not find it remarkable that well over 100 hon. Members have been able to vote in the Aye Lobby, yet it appears that hon. Members are still delaying the vote in the No Lobby? Is not that another example of the filibustering that has been going on today, and will you take steps to ensure that they vote at a reasonable speed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is always essential that Members vote at a reasonable speed.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How long will it take to clear the Lobbies? It seems to be taking much longer than usual.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order. Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will check whether there are any reasons for the delay.

The House having divided: Ayes 186, Noes 60.

Division No. 191]
12.30 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hancock, Mike


Allen, Graham
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Healey, John


Austin, John
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Hepburn, Stephen


Banks, Tony
Hill, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Barron, Kevin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Bayley, Hugh
Hope, Phil


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hopkins, Kelvin


Bennett, Andrew F
Hoyle, Lindsay


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Blizzard, Bob
Humble, Mrs Joan


Borrow, David
Hutton, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Brake, Tom
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Burden, Richard



Burgon, Colin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Caplin, Ivor
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Casale, Roger
Kidney, David


Caton, Martin
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Lepper, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Leslie, Christopher


Chaytor, David
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Church, Ms Judith
Linton, Martin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Lock, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Love, Andrew


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
McCabe, Steve


Coaker, Vernon
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Coffey, Ms Ann
McDonagh, Siobhain


Cohen, Harry
McDonnell, John


Coleman, Iain
McIsaac, Shona


Cooper, Yvette
Mackinlay, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Corston, Ms Jean
McNulty, Tony


Cousins, Jim
MacShane, Denis


Cox, Tom
Mactaggart, Fiona


Crausby, David
McWalter, Tony


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Dawson, Hilton
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Miller, Andrew


Denham, John
Moffatt, Laura


Dismore, Andrew
Moran, Ms Margaret


Dobbin, Jim
Morley, Elliot


Dowd, Jim
Mudie, George


Drown, Ms Julia
Mullin, Chris


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Efford, Clive
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ennis, Jeff
Norris, Dan


Fitzpatrick, Jim
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Olner, Bill


Flint, Caroline
Organ, Mrs Diana


Flynn, Paul
Palmer, Dr Nick


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Perham, Ms Linda


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Pike, Peter L


Gale, Roger
Pollard, Kerry


Gapes, Mike
Pond, Chris


Gardiner, Barry
Pope, Greg


Gibson, Dr Ian
Pound, Stephen


Goggins, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Prosser, Gwyn





Rendel, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Timms, Stephen


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sanders, Adrian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Singh, Marsha
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Soley, Clive
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. John Heppell and


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Neil Gerrard.




NOES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Leigh, Edward


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Blunt, Crispin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Body, Sir Richard
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cash, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norman, Archie



Öpik, Lembit


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Colvin, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Prior, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Green, Damian
Thompson, William


Greenway, John
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Grieve, Dominic
Walter, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Key, Robert
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. McNamara: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the precedent of your colleague—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I withdraw.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is one of the easier rulings I have had to make. The Division appears to have been accomplished in 14 minutes.

The House having divided: Ayes 64, Noes 187.

Division No. 192]
[12.47 pm


AYES


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Key, Robert


Baldry, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Leigh, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Livsey, Richard


Body, Sir Richard
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Nicholls, Patrick


Cash, William
Norman, Archie


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Öpik, Lembit



Paice, James


Collins, Tim
Paterson, Owen


Colvin, Michael
Prior, David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Ruffley, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Swayne, Desmond


Golding, Mrs Llin
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Thompson, William


Gray, James
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Green, Damian
Walter, Robert


Greenway, John
Waterson, Nigel


Grieve, Dominic
Wilkinson, John


Hawkins, Nick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hoey, Kate
Yeo, Tim


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Cooper, Yvette


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Allen, Graham
Corston, Ms Jean


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cousins, Jim


Austin, John
Cox, Tom


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Crausby, David


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bennett, Andrew F
Dawson, Hilton


Betts, Clive
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drown, Ms Julia


Burden, Richard
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Cawsey, Ian
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Chaytor, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Church, Ms Judith
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gale, Roger


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gapes, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gardiner, Barry


Coaker, Vernon
Gibson, Dr Ian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Goggins, Paul


Cohen, Harry
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)





Grocott, Bruce
Olner, Bill


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hancock, Mike
Palmer, Dr Nick


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Perham, Ms Linda


Healey, John
Pike, Peter L


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pollard, Kerry


Hepburn, Stephen
Pond, Chris


Hill, Keith
Pope, Greg


Hinchliffe, David
Pound, Stephen


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hope, Phil
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoyle, Lindsay
Prosser, Gwyn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hutton, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Salter, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Sanders, Adrian


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Sawford, Phil


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Singh, Marsha


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Kidney, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Soley, Clive


Lepper, David
Spellar, John


Leslie, Christopher
Steinberg, Gerry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Linton, Martin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Lock, David
Stoate, Dr Howard


Love, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


McCabe, Steve
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McDonnell, John



McIsaac, Shona
Timms, Stephen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Touhig, Don


McNamara, Kevin
Truswell, Paul


McNulty, Tony
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


MacShane, Denis
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Vis, Dr Rudi


McWalter, Tony
Walley, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wareing, Robert N


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watts, David


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
White, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Miller, Andrew



Moffatt, Laura
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Winnick, David


Morley, Elliot
Wood, Mike


Mudie, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Tellers for the Noes:


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Mr. John Heppell and


Norris, Dan
Mr. Neil Gerrard.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully understand that we are now to debate new clause 2, but I would be grateful for your guidance and clarification. The previous debate was cut short by the supporters of the Bills, one of whom moved the closure which your predecessor in the Chair, understandably, felt he had to accept. I must point out that that prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) from completing his speech dealing with important issues, such as firearms, from the Front Bench. It also prevented


the Minister from giving his advice on clause 3 and other matters to the House. That underlines the importance of having, at the proper time, individual votes on all the amendments grouped together with new clause 1. I would be grateful for your assurance that that will happen as and when we come to the new clauses.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the point that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is making, but it is purely and simply at the discretion of the Chair whether the closure should be accepted or not. To make an implied criticism of the Deputy Speaker, as the hon. Gentleman has done—and to do so from the Opposition Front Bench—is disturbing.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; it is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. However, in the distinguished exercise of your authority in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact is that you will wish to take account of the interests of Back Benchers. If they have been denied the opportunity to express themselves fully on these matters, and if they have not had the benefit of the Minister's reply and advice, surely it must be legitimate for them to ask to express their views by a formal vote when the time comes.

Mr. Garnier: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At about 11.50 am, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) moved that the Question be put. Fortunately, your predecessor in the Chair decided not to accept the motion at that time. In future, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you bear it in mind that had that motion been accepted at that time, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) would not have been able to reply to many of the points made during the debate, let alone the Minister and one of my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is turning into a debate. There is a simple point of order to be determined. It is in the Chair's discretion to decide at the appropriate time whether a separate Division is to be taken on a new clause or amendment that was part of a group. That will fall to be determined, in the case of new clause 3, after we have dealt with the next group of amendments.

New clause 2

POWER TO AMEND

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend any of the provisions of sections 1 and 8 to 13 so as to reduce the activities prohibited by section I or the powers and penalties in respect of any offence.

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. Luff.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Luff: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 20—Power to amend section 1—
'(1) The Secretary of State may, by Order made by Statutory Instrument, amend any of the provisions of section 1 so as to change the activities prohibited by section 1.
(2) An Order made under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 53, in clause 7, page 2, line 31, leave out 'remove,'.
Amendment No. 54, in page 2, line 31, leave out ', amend'.

Mr. Luff: I think that the House will agree that we had an exceptionally reasoned and well-informed debate on the previous group of new clauses, with the sole exception of the lamentable, ill-tempered and inadequate speech by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). The hon. Gentleman made one of the worst speeches that I have heard in the House—if not the worst. That is important in relation to the new clause, because as the hon. Gentleman worked himself up into an extraordinary lather of hatred against anyone who dared put a reasoned point to him, he revealed the passions that underlie this debate on hunting—at least on the Labour Benches, largely.
If the Bill proceeds—I hope sincerely that it does not in its current form, as I am sure the hon. Member for Worcester realises—there must be some mechanism within it to adjust its provisions in the light of the passions to which I have referred, in the light of the developing knowledge of hunting, in the light of the effect of a ban on the countryside and in the light of developments in our scientific understanding of what is involved.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has mentioned the extraordinarily bad speech by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Does he agree that it is extremely surprising that the hon. Gentleman, on Second Reading, allowed hardly any interventions? I sought to intervene twice, as Hansard records, but he would take no interventions from Conservative Members. Does that not show extraordinary intolerance, and an assumption that only he and his supporters can be right, and that 284,000 people last Sunday—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is helping the House. He has raised a matter that clearly goes outside the scope of the amendments.

Mr. Luff: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not respond to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
The inability of the hon. Member for Worcester to respond to the many important points made during the previous debate underlines the importance of new clause 2. Ultimately, we did not have a debate on the previous group of new clauses. Instead, we had a series of speeches in favour of them, with no reasoned argument against them. I believe that reasoned argument will emerge in favour of many of the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by others outside the House. That is why the new clause is so important to the future progress of the Bill.
The Bill has aroused huge passions in my constituency—passions which, I regret to say, the hon. Member for Worcester has unleashed. One of my constituents was terrified at the weekend when a group of protesters hurled abuse at her at the kennels of the Worcestershire hunt. She said:
Later about 20 demonstrators decided to come down here. They were shouting 'scum' and 'you should fall off your horse tomorrow and break your neck or die from cancer' at me. I was terrified.
That was because the organisers of the protest had chosen to go to the kennels when all the men would be away in London for the countryside march. Julian Barnfield, the Worcestershire huntsman, is quoted in yesterday's edition of Worcester Evening News as saying:
My little girls are four and eight—we very nearly didn't take them with us on the march, but thank God we did … They would have been terrified.
That is the nature of the behaviour of many supporters of the Bill. These are passions that we must seek to control.
The hon. Member for Worcester never listens to this sort of argument, and that is why the new clause is so important. If he had listened to the arguments that those of us who have severe reservations about the Bill advanced, he might have been able to cope with many of the difficulties that could arise if the Bill were ever enacted. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does not even answer letters. I am one of his constituents, and I write to him regularly. Generally, I receive letters with rubber stamps rather than a signature at the bottom. I noticed that he sat giggling throughout most of the debate on the previous group of new clauses. He was not listening. He is smiling and smirking even now. These are serious issues with serious consequences for many of my constituents.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinarily difficult for us to fashion proper legislation, which is our prime responsibility, when the promoter of the Bill will not allow any interventions to permit dialogue, and will not allow sufficient time for the Minister to guide the House in its deliberations? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is frustrating for us as legislators, particularly when considering private Members' Bills, to be denied proper dialogue and the proper mechanisms by which to try to improve and fashion legislation?

Mr. Luff: I agree entirely. At the risk of repeating myself, that is why new clause 2 is so important. It is the failure of the hon. Member for Worcester to engage in proper and constructive dialogue that makes the new clause so important.

Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend will have heard my interventions on stag hunting. An unfair question was asked: whether stag hunting would be permitted or excluded under the Bill. It does not matter what the hon. Member for Worcester thinks; he is the temporary trustee of the Bill. What matters is what ends up in legislation.
I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but I am not clear who is taking responsibility for the Bill. We have not had a speech from him to answer some of the legal queries. I do not blame the hon. Member for Worcester, as he is a new Member and it is a tough assignment to take up, but I do not know what back-up he has. Where is the legal advice to say whether the queries raised will be answered?
This is almost becoming a point of order. We must have proper legal guidance when considering a Bill. We know, as do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your experience, that the House has an unfortunate reputation for passing rather bad legislation that has to be sorted out afterwards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman, whose experience is also considerable, might know that he is encouraging his hon. Friend to go wide of this group of new clauses and amendments.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made an exceptionally serious point. In no way do I wish to challenge the Chair, but it was regrettable that we did not hear at length from the Minister during the debate on the previous group of new clauses. The fact that we did not hear from him underlines the need for new clause 2. When the Minister reads the report of the earlier debate, he will see that my hon. Friends—and my honorary hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Opik) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—made important points that were not addressed. That may make the Bill unworkable, and certainly deeply regrettable.
The Home Secretary will not have the luxury that the hon. Member for Worcester enjoys. He will have to listen to the voice of reason or he will be in trouble politically—possibly even legally. I suspect that he would be grateful if he were given powers to deal with the Bill's inadequacies.
New clause 2 is a modest attempt to conciliate. Those of us who support the so-called middle way approach have made a rather more ambitious attempt to conciliate, which we hope will be discussed next week if we debate the Bill again next Friday. The new clause attempts to conciliate at the margins by smoothing some of the Bill's rough edges—or at least giving the Secretary of State the chance to do so.
We are not seeking to undermine the Bill in any way through the new clause, which genuinely builds on a provision already in the Bill to give the Secretary of State power to amend the Act in respect of exemptions. There is already a precedent in the Bill for the new clause.
I regret that many important issues in the previous group of new clauses were not addressed. I had hoped to speak about the use of terriers by gamekeepers. That is an important issue and relates to new clause 25, but there was no opportunity to debate it because the debate was truncated. Some issues could not be voiced because of the early closure.
We did not have an adequate response from the Minister, although he did make a helpful attempt, for which I am grateful, to deal with a point that had been raised. It was helpful, and I was glad to see him engage in debate. However, if he sits on the Front Bench and rises only when he finds it absolutely essential to do so, he will enhance the necessity for this new clause and greatly enhance the need to amend the legislation by statutory instrument.
1.15 pm
I am wearing a lifeboat badge, which I bought this morning—I believe that Lifeboat day is tomorrow. In a sense, I am offering the hon. Member for Worcester a


lifeboat. The new clauses tabled by the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire and for Vauxhall are effectively lifeboat clauses as they could enable him to get the Bill on to the statute book. If he does not accept them, he will probably fail to do so.
I must make it perfectly clear that I have never even been on a horse in my life—except for about 30 seconds on my sister-in-law's horse, which was not a comfortable experience—let alone on a hunt, but I know huntsmen much better than the hon. Gentleman does. Unless he removes his blinkered prejudice towards those who hunt and those who speak up for hunting, he will find that he needs that lifeboat desperately, and I urge him to clamber on board. More seaworthy lifeboats will come along later, but this one will at least give him a chance of survival.
The hon. Gentleman's choice is whether to go down in glory with a Bill that fails, and therefore betrays the animal welfare lobby on whose behalf he claims to speak, or perhaps to get something on to the statute book. The House and the other place would take a different view of the Bill if it contained a clause of this nature. As it stands, the Bill is excessive. It contradicts everything that the House stands for in respect of personal liberty and freedom.

Mr. Swayne: While I accept that the Bill is wholly repugnant, is it so repugnant that we should countenance the awful principle that secondary legislation can amend primary legislation, which is effectively what my hon. Friend seeks?

Mr. Luff: To be entirely honest, I find the procedure unsatisfactory, but I would not have tabled the new clause had I not felt it essential to deal with abuse of the Bill. I do not want the Bill as drafted to reach the statute book, but there is scope for compromise. The Bill could reach the statute book and help the cause of animal welfare without inhibiting personal freedom. Sadly, the hon. Member for Worcester shows no sign of listening to that argument. I hope that, over the next few days, he will reflect on what has been said today and come round to our way of thinking.

Jacqui Smith: Stop patronising.

Mr. Luff: I have been patronised by those on the other side of this argument for years and I am fed up with it. This is a clear statement of objective fact. I quote in my aid the Home Secretary during the Firearms (Amendment) Bill on 18 June 1997. He began by quoting what he had said on Second Reading of the Bill. He said that the House had
'to be very careful before we use our power to prohibit actions that were previously lawful and involved no criminal intent. Simple disapproval can never be a ground alone for prohibition.' … I have repeated that statement because it is applicable to today's debate and will be applicable to future debates. It is a principle to which I and the Government of which I am a member seek to work whenever we address the difficult questions of balancing the personal liberty of law-abiding people against wider issues".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 399.]
The Home Secretary was right. I do not deny for a minute that the House has a duty to protect animal welfare. I oppose the Bill because it will reduce

animal welfare. However, we have a duty to stand up for civil liberties, and the Bill's draconian nature simply does not do that; it demands some new checks and balances.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) says and I share his constitutional reservations about the procedure proposed in the new clause, but it is the only procedure open to the House to deal with the problem. If the hon. Member for Worcester has the wisdom to accept the new clause, he may save his Bill by allowing some variants if, specifically and most importantly, it is shown that the Bill is in conflict with the European convention on human rights. I find it extraordinary that the House is currently considering two Bills—this and the Human Rights Bill—that could stand in sharp contradiction. There is increasingly well-informed speculation that the Government believe that the Bill will contravene the European convention on human rights which they are seeking to incorporate into British law. The Minister may give the hon. Member for Worcester a nod and a wink, and say, "Mike, take this on the chin, because that will give us the opportunity to avoid that potential conflict."

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will have seen today's reports in The Times and The Daily Telegraph that the Home Secretary has announced that this or any other Bill to ban fox hunting will not be given Government time, which all Conservative Members welcome. Has that announcement been made because of the conflict with the Human Rights Bill?

Mr. Luff: I welcome the newspaper reports, but would not want to ascribe motives to the Government. The hon. Member for Worcester should reflect seriously on the arguments for the new clause. The Home Secretary's remarks to The Times are on the record, so the hon. Gentleman must do some serious thinking or he will have wasted hours of his time that would have been better spent serving his constituents.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Bill, which is shortly to go to a Committee of the whole House. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has yet to get his head round how the Bill might infringe article 1, which deals with protection of property, article 8, which deals with the right to respect for private life, and article 11, which deals with freedom of assembly and association. Can my hon. Friend assist him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) will not proceed in such a way. We are discussing the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. New clause 2 would enable the House to take account of the important matter of whether the Bill infringes the European convention on human rights. Is not it highly


desirable that you should not accept a closure motion until the Minister tells us whether the Bill defies the convention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but the Chair will decide on the matter at the appropriate time.

Mr. Luff: I do not pretend to be a lawyer, like my distinguished hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and I do not pretend to understand the complex implications of the convention.

Mr. Garnier: I do not pretend to be a lawyer; I am a lawyer.

Mr. Luff: I bow to my hon. and learned Friend's superior legal knowledge and deep understanding, and hope that he gets many clients for a long time to come. I shall conclude my remarks on any link between the convention and the Bill.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is right.

Mr. George Howarth: Hon. Members have asked whether the hunting ban proposed in the Bill would breach the European convention on human rights. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned articles 1 and 8. I understand that no one would be deprived of his or her property if the Bill were enacted—therefore, the Bill does not contravene article 1—and that although article 8 is broad in scope, a ban on hunting with dogs would not contravene it. The concerns raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman do not apply. I should also say that the Government remain neutral on the issue.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are glad to have heard from the Minister, but he made an intervention which means that he cannot be asked questions. Will you give him the opportunity to make a speech, which would allow hon. Members to question him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Those hon. Members who want to participate will seek to catch my eye.

Mr. Luff: I have reluctantly decided to expand my remarks, because the matter is clearly important to hon. Members.
I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. He may be right to say that the articles would not be contravened, but I am advised that he may be wrong. Article 1, which deals with protection of property, and article 8, which deals with the right to private life, are relevant.
There is also an argument that article 11, on the freedom of association and assembly, might apply. I am told that those articles must be read with article 14, which prohibits discrimination on any grounds in respect of the substantive rights offered under the convention. The most important part of that article is the provision that prevents the selective invocation of public interest to justify

legislation that prohibits the activities of one particular minority, but leaves alone other comparable activities. That is an important point in the consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend touched on the precise point that goes to the heart of the human rights convention. Unless the bans proposed in the Bill can be justified on rational grounds, and not on illogical grounds that appear to discriminate, the Bill will fall foul of the convention.

Mr. Luff: That is an important and serious point.
Article 1 deals with the right to property. We must remember that hunting takes place predominantly on private land. The Bill would fundamentally interfere with the right of individuals to choose how to use their private property.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): I am trusting to my memory here; I do not claim that it is infallible, but I think that on this occasion, it is right. I think that there is a clause in the Human Rights Bill, which will come before a Committee of the whole House before long, that provides that if the Bill becomes law, it will be incumbent on the Government, before the introduction of any piece of legislation, to give the House authoritative legal advice on the standing of that legislation vis-a-vis the convention. My right hon. and learned Friends the Members for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) are nodding to show that my memory of the Human Rights Bill is correct.
In the light of that, and given that the Government hope that the Bill will be law before too long, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) should encourage the Minister—subject to the wishes of the Chair—to wait until next Friday to make his speech. He could then give us the authoritative legal advice on this issue, which in principle the Government are willing to do because it is part of the provisions in the Human Rights Bill. Should the Minister decide to make his speech today, or should the Chair decide to accept a closure motion before the end of the day, my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to rise on a point of order next Friday and satisfy us on this legal point.

Mr. Luff: That was more a point of order than an intervention, but I wish strongly to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks. He made a powerful and convincing case. It is a shame that these issues were not explored in the Standing Committee—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is touching on an important aspect. He will be aware, as will the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), that this is a criminal Bill. Clause 1(2) provides not only for the person who is hunting to be criminally liable, but for the owner of the land vicariously to be criminally liable. Clause 2(c) provides that something done
at the request of the owner
has an effect on criminality. The whole question of ownership of property ties in with the human rights aspects in an important way. We need to hear from the Minister on that at some point.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valuable contribution to the debate on an important point.
I want to highlight the Bill's potential impact on farmers, who will be denied the right to choose how to control pests on their land. That may be a breach of the first protocol of article 1 of the convention, but also of article 8 on respect for private life. I understand that the convention draws that aspect very widely, and it has been said that that should reflect many facets of moral and social issues in our pluralistic society. Hunting plays a crucial part in social recreation, as well as in the economic and farming life of rural Britain. For those reasons, I think that article 8 will probably also apply.
The Bill could be challenged because of the lack of a sufficiently clearly defined public interest ground. There is no public interest ground for the Bill—it flies in the face of true public interest. There is also the absence of a specific ground for intervention, which applies under article 8. There is no necessity for the Bill; in fact, there is a necessity not to have the Bill as it will reduce animal welfare. There is a lack of proportionality, which is important, and there is discrimination under article 14 of the convention.
I understand that because it is not a Government Bill, the legislation would have a lower status in Strasbourg, and would be lower in the pecking order and more liable to challenge. I did not intend to make those points, but the Minister prompted me to make them, and it is important to place them on the record. The Minister must address them in the House before we vote on the new clause.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I ask my hon. Friend to reinforce that point. We have been told several times that the Home Office has redrafted some of the clauses. I do not know whether that is correct, but if it is, it means that the Government are taking an unusual degree of responsibility for the Bill, and it is important to know the amount of responsibility that they are taking. No doubt the Minister will tell us about that.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend's intervention, with which I agree, speaks for itself.
New clause 2 could save the House and the Government a great deal of difficulty. There were great hopes that the Prime Minister might reconsider his position on a royal commission or some other sort of independent inquiry on the future of hunting. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman completely ruled that out at Prime Minister's Question Time a few weeks ago. I sincerely hope that he did not.
I think that it was my hon. Friend for the purpose of this debate, the Member for Vauxhall, who said that it was remarkable to be considering such draconian legislation without the results of a serious inquiry by the Government or any other body. Such an inquiry could produce new evidence or might authenticate the evidence that we claim exists in opposition to the Bill. That could require the Secretary of State to make changes so that he can sleep comfortably if he believes what he said about civil liberties during the passage of the Bill that led to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
The Bill criminalises an act that is proper and acceptable in certain circumstances that are not materially different from circumstances that it condemns. That poses

huge problems of interpretation for the courts. I am sure that the Home Secretary will want a power to amend some parts of the Bill. It contradicts the principles of natural justice, proposes disproportionate penalties and has no provision for compensation for those whom it will affect. Because it is a private Member's Bill, the measure cannot deal with money issues. To put before the House a Bill that does not allow for compensation is fundamentally wrong. A major part of our deliberations on the firearms legislation was on that topic.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is speaking about compensation. Is he aware that the European convention on human rights has established that those who are dispossessed of property are entitled to compensation? That may be yet another way in which the Bill would transgress that convention. If fox hunting were ever abolished, it would probably have to be done by Government legislation because of that requirement for compensation.

Mr. Luff: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point of which I was not aware. It leads me to wonder whether the Bill is acceptable under the private Member's Bill procedure when, technically, such a measure should have a compensation provision, which would, of course, make it ineligible for that procedure. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that before next week.
The Bill's definitions of offences are inadequate. Who are the criminals? It may not be a serious point, but there is no distinction between dogs and bitches. The Secretary of State may want power to amend those definitions.

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would assist everyone if the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) would show that he is giving way.

Mr. Luff: I indicated with my hand, but not with my voice. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Paterson: It might help my hon. Friend to know that in Committee, we continually pressed the Bill's supporters to understand that on a wet, windy afternoon in Market Drayton a magistrate will have to interpret the legislation and someone may go to gaol. In the Bill's first and second incarnations, the words "hunt" and "hunts" appear in the first line, and at no stage could the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) give a definition of that fundamental word. It was left to the "common sense" of magistrates.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend shows why it is so important for the Secretary of State to have power to vary the Bill's effect and impact if it were to become law.
In the past, the debate in the country about the purpose of hunting has been sterile. It is about pest control and dispersal, but as a country sport, it brings pleasure to people. There is no contradiction there. It also brings important benefits to the environment and supports employment in remote rural areas. In addition, it has social benefits. At some stage, the Home Secretary may well want to reflect on those benefits and on powers to reduce the impact of this legislation.
I am convinced that, if we deal with the concerns of most people in this country, we can isolate the extremists, and develop legislation that will give hunting an acceptability that I accept it probably currently lacks in some people's mind. That would be a huge step forward, and the House would be able to debate issues more important than fox hunting. New clause 2 would give the Secretary of State powers to amend legislation in the light of knowledge and developing concern, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Heseltine: The essence of our debate is the differences between clause 7 and new clauses 2 and 20—all three of which are effectively Henry VIII clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has already made the important point that, if we take the Bill at face value, we will be passing primary legislation and giving to this Parliament, or to a subsequent one, the ability by order to change the Bill's entire purpose. Everyone will admit that clause 1(1) states the Bill's essence—to ban hunting. Therefore, in a future deliberation, Parliament could by order alter the Bill's fundamental purpose.
Allowing a new Act to be designed by secondary legislation is an undesirable technique. If we replace section 1(1), we shall change the Bill's entire substance without any of the deliberative processes of a Committee stage and Report stage, which allow the House to scrutinise legislation. Change would be made by a simple resolution of the House after minimal debate. The House has been reluctant to use Henry VIII clauses and the other place has been almost insistent that they should not be used.
Clause 7(1) admits the possibility that it may be necessary not to amend the details—as that is precluded by clause 7(1)—but to destroy the Bill or to amend it substantially. Is it just possible that the more relevant powers that the House should consider are new clauses 2 and 20, which deal with the House's ability to deal with the Bill's detail?
I was not a member the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. After listening with some care to most of what has been said in this debate, that does not cause me great concern, except in one material sense: one does not get the impression that the Committee's conduct was of the highest standards of constitutional practice.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: It was on our side.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: on his side, the conduct was of the highest standards of constitutional practice. How does he square that with precluding debate on virtually anything other than the Bill's first provisions, tearing up the part of the Bill that had been thoroughly debated, and then relying on the Government to replace the substance of the original Bill with a totally new set of provisions? Has he the effrontery to suggest that that is best constitutional practice? He has not been an hon. Member for long but, if that is the basis on which his constitutional judgment rests, he has not fully understood the great traditions that make this the mother of Parliaments. However, he may come round to it. If he would listen to the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has so eloquently made, and to which I hope to add, he will understand the substance of what we are saying.
Basically, we do not like Henry VIII powers. The Bill's supporters understand that, on the Bill's substantive issue, it is necessary to have the ability totally to destroy it. That shows me that there is some unease in the minds of the Bill's supporters. It has apparently occurred to them that they might have got it wrong. Indeed, it has been proved beyond peradventure that they did get it monumentally wrong, which is why the Home Office had to get involved to get it right.
The problem with that, to which my Front-Bench colleagues have drawn attention, is that the Home Office is silent. It has done the work, the thinking and the planning and it has written the notes on clauses, but the only people who cannot share in all that are Members of Parliament. We cannot hear what the Minister has to say. He gives no sign and makes no intervention. Were I a Minister in this Government—heaven forfend—I would want to be eloquent on behalf of the officials who have contributed so much to the Bill.

Mr. Grieve: Is not that silence all the more remarkable given that, on Second Reading, the Minister told the House, first, that the Government were neutral and, secondly, that neither they nor he could see any reason why, with a bit of co-operation, a proper Bill could not be put on the statute book?

Mr. Heseltine: New Labour, new legislation. The fact is that Home Office officials have been deeply involved in the Bill.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend should not be surprised by the internal contradiction in clause 7. There is another contradiction in the fact that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) says that he is in favour of animal welfare, yet the Bill permits exemptions which would promote the sorts of activities of which he so heartily disapproves.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. and learned Friend is better versed in the detail of the Bill and I shall listen with great interest when he expands his arguments later.
I find it very difficult to understand how there is to be a Henry VIII clause that allows the Bill to be substantially wrecked but which does not allow the House to deal with subsections (2) to (5) of clause 1. We can do what we like with clause 1(1), but we can do nothing about subsection (2), which refers to an owner or occupier of land committing an offence
if he permits another person to enter or use that land to hunt in contravention of subsection (1).
I do not know how such matters are defined. If someone happens to cross the threshold of a farmer's land and the farmer does not actually tell him not to, perhaps because his permission was not sought, is he committing an offence? If the farmer has not put up fences, is he deemed to have permitted the person to use his land? Who is to determine such things? The House cannot other than by new substantive legislation.
Clause 1(3) refers to the owner or keeper of a dog. Apparently, someone who has a dog commits an offence if he permits another person to use that dog. I do not know what kind of dogs other hon. Members have, but mine are


not under such control. If someone whistled at my dog and encouraged it to do something, I could not guarantee that I could force it to resist.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend was talking about clause 7, wholly correctly, but does he agree that the real vice of that clause is that it enables the Secretary of State by order to remove the exemptions to clause 1? In other words, by order, the Secretary of State can extend the range of criminal offences and the number and class of people to whom those offences will apply.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend says. That shows the complexities of the matter before us. The second—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. or hon. Gentleman who has brought a phone into the Chamber should take it out immediately. [Interruption.] I suspect that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) must be grateful for my intervention; otherwise, we might never have known.

Mr. Heseltine: I have no doubt that I am grateful, but the person making the call probably is not.
Clause 7(1) is extremely restrictive. If there are to be Henry VIII powers, I see no reason why they should not cover other parts of the Bill that deal with penalties, confiscation and so on.
I should like to make a further point that is borne out by my own experience of dealing with such issues. In 1981, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—who is not here—and I were responsible for steering the Wildlife and Countryside Bill through the House. As the House knows, I have never hunted in my life and it is extremely unlikely that I shall do so now.
My particular interest in the Wildlife and Countryside Bill was the conservation of bird life, as I am interested in bird watching. I contacted the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, explained that we were introducing a comprehensive Wildlife and Countryside Bill to protect bird life and asked for advice on what needed to be done. By and large, we reached agreement with the RSPB on what was necessary for the conservation of birds.
1.45 pm
The Act is now almost 20 years old; at the time, it was considered a pace-setting measure for conservation. However, nobody had foreseen the plagues of Canada geese and magpies or the inland penetration of cormorants. Those developments have transformed the conservation issue. I have no factual evidence. I have seen surveys, but I do not call them in aid. Nobody will ever persuade me that the plague of magpies that now affects virtually every part of the country is not an incomparably more damaging threat to the migrants whose eggs we were trying to protect in 1981 than anything little boys pinching eggs could do.
I live in the heart of England, where there are now cormorants. As everyone knows, they attack fish indiscriminately, but at the time of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, they were never seen in that part of

England. Black-headed gulls are everywhere. That was not the case 20 years ago. The issue that the hon. Member for Worcester, with his contemptuous dismissal of any argument that he does not like, has to face is that it is very difficult to deal with the balance of nature. In the end, only one force—the human one—can preserve that balance for some of the animals that we are considering today. The more one denies that, the more forces will be allowed to threaten other parts of the natural chain. I advocate the ability to make legislative changes to reflect that because I went through the same process 20 years ago for similar reasons to those that I suspect motivate the hon. Member for Worcester. I am very aware that, having produced that legislation, we now hardly have the capacity to control the increasing plagues of predators that have developed as a consequence.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said. Although I knew nothing about pack hunting when I came to the House today, it struck me as a classic example of the changes that the House could want to make.
All the advocates of the Bill must know that the wildlife listed in the Bill will be culled. That is not in serious dispute. The issue is how it is done. Some of the means are illegal and I suspect that there will be an increase in illegal culling because people's livelihoods will be at risk. They may be fined or imprisoned, but they will do it because their livelihoods will be at risk.
Let us assume that people will resort to the legal method—shooting. That means either that there will be exactly the same amount of shooting as there is now, in which case there will be less culling, or there will be more shooting. Let us assume that there will be more shooting. Will it have anything to do with what might be called risk? If there are more guns and more people shooting, will there not be a greater danger that somebody will get hurt or killed? The Bill gives us no powers to deal with that, because we may deal with section 1(1) only. One could easily conceive of a situation in which a Government would say, "We know that culling is necessary and we acknowledge that the only real alternative is shooting, so we want a regulatory system to contain shooting." However, I do not think that one could introduce a regulatory provision under this provision; doing so would be an abuse of the legislation as currently drafted.
My hon. Friends have made an extremely reasonable proposal, and I was among those who tabled new clause 20. We are trying to give a subsequent Parliament—or the present Parliament in later years—the ability to put right what is generally agreed to have gone wrong.
We do not want to wreck the Bill; no one will be obliged to use those purely voluntary powers. The proponents of the Bill need not worry as long as they have a majority in the House, because they will not allow the amending legislation to pass; they have agreed that there should be amending legislation, but only to a narrow part of the Bill.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire was right to say that, if the proponents of the Bill want to make progress, they should accept new clause 2. What is the fuss? No one can use the powers against their will. They must admit that such powers could be necessary in certain circumstances,


because they have incorporated them in the Bill. We simply say to them, "Why not give yourselves more flexibility?"

Mr. Hogg: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 53 and 54, which stand in my name. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I repeat what I said to you on 1 May—that I oppose the Bill root and branch because it infringes civil liberties. I have tabled these amendments only because if there must be a Bill—I hope that there will not—it had better be a better Bill than that which stands before the House.
Clause 7, to which my two amendments apply, gives the power to amend the exceptions under clause 1(1). It gives the Secretary of State the power by order
to remove, amend or add exceptions to section 1(1).
I outlined to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) the consequences of that power. It would be possible for the Secretary of State to use the power under clause 7 to remove, or to transform fundamentally, all the exceptions that the Bill provides. Moreover, that process would be done by statutory instrument.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend is focusing on a very important legislative principle. Does his argument lead him to point out that that would enable the Secretary of State to create new criminal offences by secondary legislation?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is wholly right; that is the point that I am trying to make. I want to be fair to the Minister, who may have been responsible for the clause, and at least welcome the fact that the amending power is by way of affirmative resolution procedure—that is to say, there must be a debate in the House and the order must be approved by both Houses. That is welcome as far as it goes, but the Minister will forgive me if I say to him that that procedure allows only 90 minutes of debate in the House and that the terms of the order are not amendable.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, is wholly right when he says that the clause enables new offences to be created by secondary legislation. I fundamentally oppose that, on principle. I know that, on occasion, the Government of which 1 was a member created new offences by secondary legislation. We have all done it far too often. As a general principle, we should not create offences or obligations by secondary legislation unless it is absolutely necessary, because the debate is limited and there is no ability to amend.
The narrow purpose of amendments Nos. 53 and 54 is to remove some of the evil that I believe lies in clause 7. If the amendments are agreed to, the Secretary of State could only add to the exceptions, not remove them. That is an unsatisfactory process, but I would rather that he used the powers in the clause to increase the exceptions than for any other purpose. That was the spirit in which I tabled the two amendments.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I shall first respond to the comments of Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is indeed one of my constituents. Perhaps I should remind the House why: last year, he valiantly joined the chicken run. That may be why he is so keen to persecute foxes—he fears that he is

under threat—but I assure him that the best way to deal with a fox that is chasing him is a quick shot; he may have had his day by the time the timetabled hunt arrives.

Mr. Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I shall certainly give way to my constituent.

Mr. Luff: May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to raise the tone of his comments and address the serious issues.

Mr. Foster: In the few remarks that I have made so far, I have raised the tone of the debate higher than the level to which the hon. Gentleman brought it.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No. I want to make some progress.
Hon. Members say that we failed to engage in proper dialogue. That is a bit rich, given that we are also accused of taking too long in Committee, when we rightly had proper dialogue. I cannot get a grip of Conservative Members' contradictory arguments.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I want to make some progress first, if possible.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said that the new clause represents an offer of a lifeboat, but the Titanic would be a more appropriate offer of help. Clause 7 already provides the Secretary of State with powers to change by statutory instrument—however unsatisfactory that may be—the exemptions from the express offence of hunting.
The new clause would allow the penalties, the level of forfeiture and interpretation of the Bill to be changed by statutory instrument. That is not acceptable, although I accept that a future Secretary of State could change the level of forfeiture and what is meant by the offence if we allow him such flexibility.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is relying on clause 7, but if he examined the new clause more closely he would see that the amending power relates exclusively to exceptions, not to the generality of the issue, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) have spoken.

Mr. Foster: The clause was written in that way deliberately—I do not think that there is anything wrong with that.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: May I first make a little progress?
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned dispossession of property, but the Bill would not dispossess owners of their dogs—it would not prevent kennels from having dogs. It would, however, stop people


using those dogs to chase wild mammals. People could still use dogs to follow an artificial scent; they could still take pleasure in the chase and enjoy the social scene and the liberties that that involves. All that we want is to stop the cruel and barbaric act of hunting wild mammals with dogs—that is what the Bill is all about.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)— he is no longer in the Chamber; his was another cameo appearance—spoke about the balance of nature. I can think of nothing more likely to interfere with the balance of nature than humans taking pleasure from torturing wild mammals.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman asked for an example of hounds helping conservation. Does he realise that the Banwy valley fox hounds and the Berwyn fox hounds are called out at the direct invitation of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds around Lake Vyrnwy and on the moors to protect rare species?

Mr. Foster: That may well be the case but it does not necessarily mean that it is the most humane and effective way. That is what the Bill is about. No one denies that fox numbers may have to be controlled. That is why there is an exemption for flushing, which was so welcomed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). It is all about the manner in which the interference is conducted. Humane shooting is the most effective way of dealing with a pest. It is selective, safe, humane and efficient. All those things are important.
On the contribution of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), if we are to make provision for statutory instruments in a Bill such as this, it is important that the Secretary of State is given the utmost flexibility. His amendments deny flexibility to the Secretary of State and that is why I oppose them, as well as new clause 2.

2 pm

Mr. Beith: When I saw new clause 2, notwithstanding its respectable parentage, I was worried. However, I welcome the amendment that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) expounded a moment ago. My concern was underlined when the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that we must allow the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. I do not believe in giving Ministers flexibility to decide what the law is or is not, or should or should not be. That should be done by primary legislation.
I well understand the motives that led to the tabling of new clause 2; it was well intentioned. I shall say why shortly. If we are not careful, we shall degrade the law-making process by turning to secondary legislation—statutory instruments—to deal with primary matters of law and allow brief House procedures to determine what is a criminal offence or what will condemn our constituents to possible prison sentences. We frequently arrive at that situation, as we did two nights ago, when, in a debate on clause 99 of the Scotland Bill, the Government suggested a procedure, as a result of my request, to ensure that fisheries legislation affecting England could not be determined solely by the Scottish Parliament, and would have to be determined by the

Westminster Parliament as well. No one objected to the use of that procedure. I raised my anxieties about it, but had to concede that it was better than our having no powers at all.
We are usually attracted to using such forms of words when we feel that some greater good must be served. We should never do it without pausing to reflect and, wherever possible, we should restrict the capacity to do it. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham proposed a restriction that goes to the heart of the matter. New clause 2, and clause 7 if his amendment were accepted, would allow the Secretary of State only to reduce the risk of penalty of imprisonment for our constituents. It is worse if a Minister can decide, and implement by a brief procedure, that something should become a criminal offence; it is perhaps less worrying if a Minister pulls back the boundaries of the law as it affects the public.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that clause 7 would allow the sport of shooting to be abolished by statutory instrument with only 90 minutes of debate in the House?

Mr. Beith: I am very worried both that that becomes technically possible and that there is a logic in the case for the Bill that could readily be extended to other sports, such as shooting and fishing. We must be careful about such provisions and recognise that some people—I am not one—desire that various such sports should be banned. I do not, as it happens, take part in any of them myself, but I am pretty cautious about what I am prepared to send my fellow citizens to prison for. Whatever our individual views, likes and dislikes may be, and however strong they are, we must think carefully before we turn activities into criminal offences.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Luff: rose—

Mr. Beith: I should like to make progress, because I want to develop my argument.
That aspect is significant partly because the procedures by which statutory instruments are dealt with in Parliament are very different from those for primary legislation. A statutory instrument, even one subject to affirmative resolution, is normally debated for only an hour and a half—almost invariably by a Committee rather than by the whole House.
In Committee, it is not possible to amend the statutory instrument in any way. Even if it is thought to go too far, to be too wide or to be inaccurate, it cannot be subject to any of the amendment processes to which we are subjecting the Bill, and implications cannot be drawn out so readily. Often, all that happens is a vote late at night in the House, and hon. Members come in and ask, "What is this all about? What happened in Committee?" There is no process of amendment. The House has sought to recognise on many occasions—certainly if this House does not, the other place, in its revising role, does—that that is not an adequate process by which to create new criminal offences.

Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to the concern that many of us share about the


fact that, in promoting the Bill, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has said that one of his favourite sports is angling, runs the risk that one day someone whose hatred of anything to do with the countryside is even more virulent than his—perhaps someone in his own party—will use his legislation to ban the sport on which he says he is so keen.

Mr. Beith: The potential widening of the Bill to cover other sports is another reason why some of the Members who have supported it so enthusiastically should stop in their tracks and ask themselves, "Just a minute; what monster are we creating here?" Many of them have sought to distinguish between country sports on the ground that some are acceptable and some are not. I do not understand the logic of some of the distinctions that they draw.

Mr. Luff: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I do not want to give way again for the moment, because I want to make a little progress.
Would it be reasonable to accept the use of that procedure to allow the Secretary of State not to add to but to reduce the number of offences in the Bill? I could reluctantly be dragged to that point, because the general effect of the Bill is to take away the civil liberties of hundreds of my constituents—people who engage in hunting or follow hunting on foot, or work in pursuits that depend on hunting, as farriers, as grooms or in carrying out other activities related to the care and upkeep of horses. The civil liberties and livelihoods of very large numbers of people would be affected in all sorts of ways.
Amendments have been tabled to later parts of the Bill in the hope of drawing the attention of the House to the economic consequences, which have not been properly assessed.

Mr. Hancock: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not seriously suggesting that, once the Bill is carried, as I hope that it will be, all the people actively involved in looking after horses in one way or another will be put out of work and deprived of their livelihood because people would get rid of their horses. If that is his serious contention, what evidence is there to support it?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House that the overwhelming majority of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament support the Bill—

Dr. Brian Iddon: Where are they?

Mr. Hancock: The overwhelming majority of members of our party in the country are also actively campaigning to ensure that the Bill is passed.

Mr. Beith: I must point out that, in the Chamber, there are two Liberal Democrat Members who oppose the Bill and only one who is in favour of it. It is a free-vote issue, and members of all parties take different views on the matter.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: Not now. I shall answer my hon. Friend, but I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.
My answer is yes, I do believe that the livelihood of people who look after horses and provide services related to them will be affected by the Bill. People in constituencies such as mine—obviously this is not so in Portsmouth, but it is in Northumberland—keep horses to hunt. They may hunt two or three days a week, and they will not incur that expense if they cannot hunt. In particular, they will not keep hunters for that purpose. When we think about the economic consequences, the impact of that on point-to-point racing and even national hunt racing will have to be considered. There is no doubt that, whereas some of those people will want to continue their love of horse riding, the economics will not stack up if they are no longer able to hunt and horses will not be kept in the same numbers.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. Those of us who have known him for a long time would expect him to address the issue of the civil rights of his constituents. He has just said something as profound as anything I have heard in the Chamber in 19 years—that he is cautious, as all of us should be, about deciding what it is we send our constituents to prison over. In a sense, we are the guardians of the freedom of our constituents. He was right to emphasise that people will go to gaol as a consequence of the Bill. Does he think that there is anything about the Bill that is of sufficient seriousness to warrant sending our constituents to gaol—and, if so, what?

Mr. Beith: I touched on that point on Second Reading, and it is relevant to the new clause. If we do not amend clause 7, a Minister could—by a stroke of the pen and a relatively short procedure in this House—add to the range of offences, and thereby lead to the sending of someone to gaol for something which was not originally included in the Bill. We must stop and think carefully about that, just as we must stop and think carefully about the principle of the legislation.
In order to be convinced that that was a reasonable course of action, we should have to accept that what was being prohibited was manifestly, clearly and unmistakably a much more cruel way of controlling the fox population—or whatever other animal or fish might be included—than other means of doing so, or that it was totally unnecessary to control the population. No one in the House thinks that it is unnecessary to control the fox population, and it has not been demonstrated that hunting with hounds is significantly, manifestly or demonstrably more cruel than shooting or snaring.
When I press my hon. Friends who feel strongly on this—I respect their strong feelings—I find that, in the end, they resort to the argument that people should not take pleasure in that activity. I find that to be a totally inadequate basis for legislating to send people to prison. We can send someone to prison for carrying out acts of wanton and unnecessary cruelty. We cannot send people to prison because we do not approve of a method of controlling animals that is no less cruel or causes no less pain than others, or because we think that people should not enjoy doing it. Someone might well enjoy engaging in snaring animals, but that is a far more cruel way of controlling the fox population.
I refer now to the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. With great reluctance, I accept that it might be reasonable,


if we are to have the Bill—frankly, I think that that is extremely unlikely—that there should be some capacity to reduce the extent to which it takes away people's civil liberties in the future, especially if it were clearly demonstrated that other methods were being tried but were not working.

Mr. Luff: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Does he agree that new clause 2 also meets his test—it not only reduces the power of the Secretary of State, but is slightly more comprehensive in its scope?

Mr. Beith: I linked the two together, because they both involve reducing only the extent to which the Bill can create offences and send people to prison. The power can be used only to take away offences, rather than add to them. That seems to me to be the partial defence of using a procedure that, otherwise, I do not like. To have such a measure in the Bill would ensure that, in future, a Secretary of State presented with incontrovertible evidence that more cruel methods were being used than fox hunting could take fox hunting out of the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment, and there may be scope for argument as to whether that is sufficient.
The supporters of the new clauses—I note the names of the three hon. Members concerned—are associated with attempts to find some kind of middle way to meet some of the concerns of those who believe, as I do not, that fox hunting is inherently more cruel, while not removing either civil liberties or the practical usefulness of fox hunting.
I commend the efforts that those hon. Members have made and the efforts of those, some of them formerly associated with the League Against Cruel Sports, who have examined the issue closely and realised that we should try to find some middle way. If there are elements of unnecessary cruelty that can be removed from country sports, let us consider what they are and whether they can be removed. The process outlined in the new clauses would at least allow that consideration to continue. If evidence were subsequently produced that, for example, fox hunting with a particular control added to it would be improved, that might be something that the Secretary of State could consider.
2.15 pm
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) was right when he said earlier that probably we would need some form of licensing or regulating authority to operate effectively a process of examination. Like others, I do not like too much licensing and regulating. However, we must ensure that we protect animals from unnecessary cruelty. I can justify having a licensing mechanism if it can help to achieve that object. I cannot defend, unamended, a Bill that will not lead to a reduction in cruelty to animals. Instead, the Bill will invite the use of other methods to

control foxes that are not demonstrably less painful or cruel than the methods of traditional fox hunting. I am bound to be concerned about and oppose—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I am coming to the close of my remarks.
I am bound to oppose legislation that, without adequate justification, would take away the civil liberties of many people. It does not matter whether I agree or disagree with those people. The essence of my position as a Liberal is that sometimes I have to tolerate things that I do not like or with which I do not agree.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I did say, in effect, that I would not give way. However, the hon. Gentleman makes the only attempted intervention from the Labour Benches, so I shall give way.

Mr. Steinberg: The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of civil liberties. How did he vote on the banning of handguns?

Mr. Beith: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was against the banning of handguns. It was a free-vote issue. I believe that the Cullen report set out, at the Government's request, a better method of controlling handguns, and that banning would not have prevented the ghastly incident which generated pressure for legislation. As I have said, it was a free-vote issue. My response underlines the fact that I examine legislation rather carefully from the point of view of civil liberties.
The Bill, if enacted, would make huge inroads into the civil liberties of hundreds of law-abiding people in my constituency, and thousands throughout the country. It threatens to send to prison many people who are engaged in activities that are currently legal. I do not believe that the case has been made out. Therefore, I am prepared, reluctantly, to support a new clause, and pleased to support an amendment to the Bill, which would give the Secretary of State the opportunity in future to reduce the likelihood of the Bill sending people to prison.

Kate Hoey: First, I make an unreserved apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). You will not be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that earlier today I said that my hon. Friend had told me that on one occasion he had filibustered because he had spoken for three hours. I have since had a long chat with my hon. Friend, and I made it clear that I would tell the House that he did not filibuster for three hours. Indeed, the Deputy Speaker in the Chair at that time made it clear to him that he had not breached any legal aspect of the proceedings of the House. My hon. Friend made an extremely good speech for three hours, which was clearly within the rules of the House. I want to make that plain because my hon. Friend knows the procedures of this place better than anyone.
I say in the most friendly spirit to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) that perhaps it would have been sensible if he had spent a little time, before he


introduced the Bill, talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover about private Members' Bills and the difficulty of getting such a Bill through the House when it raises a controversial issue, when there is to be a free vote and when hon. Members on both sides of the House have strong feelings.
I shall be brief because I know that a number of my colleagues are trying to speak before 2.30 pm. I know that Opposition Members want to do so. I just—[Interruption.] Perhaps some of my hon. Friends would like to speak before 2.30 pm as well. I very much agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who said that the new clause degrades, as he put it, the law-making process. We are all aware of that. This is not the way to handle legislation.
We came up with the new clause precisely because, if the Bill is passed as it stands, it would be a serious breach of civil liberties. I do not want to repeat—were I to do so, I might be ruled out of order—the reasons why I did not support the Bill on Second Reading. I have spoken about animal welfare. When people look at the Bill carefully, they will see that the Bill would not do anything for animal welfare.
I am concerned, as I mentioned on Second Reading, about the attitude on civil liberties. I am pleased that the Minister mentioned the European Court and the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way on a point about civil liberties?

Kate Hoey: This is the only intervention that I shall take, because other hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Lady aware of James Barrington, who works with Wildlife Network, an organisation with which she has been working to find a middle way? He is a former member of the League Against Cruel Sports. Writing in the magazine Smallholder in February, he said:
As hard as it is to accept, especially for people who have spent many years campaigning against fox hunting, the simple answer is that the fox is likely to be worse off
as a result of the Bill.

Kate Hoey: That is the conclusion that any hon. Member who really looked at the issues would reach. That is why it is important that, when faced with a Bill such as this—many of us may well have been in favour of bans in the past as we had never seriously looked at this—we understand what we are doing, and understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed about what our constituents could face if the Bill is passed without amendment.
I hope that the Minister will come back with a little more detail about the European convention on human rights. It is clear that, if the Bill is passed, there will be many grounds on which it could be challenged. We do not want to sign up to the Human Rights Bill, bring it in and then find that many people from various interests will try to challenge it. I mention the grounds on which this Bill may be challenged so that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has them in mind when he looks at them over the next week. The first important one will be a lack of a clearly identified public interest. That must be looked at with article 1.
To be lawful, the Bill will have to pass the test of proportionality and fair balance. That concept will be a big legal consideration. Part of that would require the legislator to identify both the general interest that is being served by the interference and the motive for the legislation. There will be a number of legal difficulties with the Bill if it is passed without amendment.
Although it is not perfect, our new clause is a measure of the great confidence in the Home Secretary felt by all parties, in the sense that it has been tabled by an hon. Member from each party, because we feel that he will look at this fairly. If the Bill is passed, we know that it will affect the balance of nature and wildlife management. However, as a result of our new clause, the Home Secretary will have the power to step in and change the Bill, for example, by not prohibiting hunting by dogs if it is considered that some of the other methods that are being used are more cruel than that. I am pleased that we have had this opportunity. As other hon. Members want to speak, I shall simply say that I hope that the House will support the new clause when it comes to voting next week.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss new clause 20, which is co-sponsored by my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has already spoken briefly, for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in due course, and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
This has been the most interesting part of today's proceedings, because we have been dealing not only with whether fox hunting, deer hunting or hare coursing are good or bad, but with the bigger constitutional question of Henry VIII clauses, which were first drawn to the attention of the House this morning by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in an intervention and were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in his extremely cogent speech.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire for the efforts that he has made, with the hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is my London Member of Parliament—I am grateful that she is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I hope that I do not ruin her career by admitting to that.

Kate Hoey: In case people think that there is any kind of bias in that, I should explain that I probably have more Members of Parliament as my constituents than any other hon. Member.

Mr. Garnier: May I speak on behalf of them all, by drawing to the attention of the wider listening public the signal contribution that the hon. Lady has made to the issue of civil liberties, in terms not just of hunting but of how a Member of Parliament can speak up and address the House on issues that may be deeply unpopular with his or her party colleagues but that the House has a right to hear. I am particularly proud to be a Member of a House that allows the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) to express ideas that are unpopular, particularly among Labour Members, and present their case fearlessly.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for their attempt, in founding the Middle Way Group, along with Mr. Barrington and Mr. Davies, to find a solution. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire used a telling phrase the other day when he was introducing the group. He said that he intended to find a solution, not to claim victory. I hope that I paraphrase him correctly. It was an intelligent remark, and I hope that he will take my praise in the spirit in which it is intended. I do not wish to belittle the group's efforts. Although I am not sure whether I agree with everything that those three hon. Members seek to do, I applaud their effort to build bridges between the two polarised and extreme positions.
One of the problems from which the debate suffers was exemplified by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). On television later that afternoon, he refused to see any merit in the position adopted by the three hon. Members who have formed the Middle Way Group.

Mr. Öpik: May I confirm the hon. and learned Gentleman's understanding of our intent? It is to find a way forward rather than to claim victory for one side or the other.

Mr. Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for—

Mr. Bennett: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Garnier: Such a motion comes ill from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who was called the "amender-general" in Committee. He tabled more than 200 amendments designed to wreck, inhibit and obscure debate. He sought to ensure, through a parliamentary device that he attempted to construct, that hon. Members could not debate matters of considerable public interest on the Floor of the House on Report. Happily, that device failed, and my hon. Friends and I are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for deciding not to accept a closure motion at this stage. A number of other hon. Members want to speak on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley described as one of the biggest issues with which we have to come to terms.
My new clause, which is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater, who is sitting beside me, would allow the Secretary of State, by order
to change the activities prohibited by section 1.
It contrasts with new clause 2, which has been tabled by the Middle Way Group of MPs and permits the Secretary of State to amend by order
any of the provisions of sections 1 and 8 to 13".
Having considered new clause 2—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 13 March.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

WELFARE OF PIGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

HOME ZONES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Second Reading what day? No date given.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 3 July.

POLICE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 8 May.

COMPANIES (MILLENNIUM COMPUTER COMPLIANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Zones Bill was supposed to be third on the list.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The name of the Bill was read out, but nobody moved the motion.

Mrs. Brinton: When was the title of the Bill read out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The title of the Bill was read out in order, as it appears on the Order Paper. No voice was heard to move Second Reading. Therefore, I recorded the Bill as not moved.

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to learn which Conservative representative of vested interests objected to my Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the form extremely well. He must be observant.

REFORM OF QUARANTINE REGULATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 March.

PROHIBITION OF BULL BARS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

WATER INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 April.

Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am privileged to have secured this Adjournment debate on the future of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood, which worries my constituents more than any other local issue. The hospital's future has been an underlying concern since I was first elected to the House as the local MP in 1979, but the Minister of State, Department of Health, knows that this background anxiety has become a grave preoccupation in recent months. He received most courteously a constituency deputation which included the pressure group Community Voice, representatives of the Northwood and Ruislip residents associations and the community health council.
The hospital is part of the Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS trust, and the only hospital in my constituency that offers general medical as well as surgical and, most importantly, specialist cancer and related services. It has built up a formidable reputation as a regional cancer centre. It is the largest on a single site in England, supporting burns and plastics, oral and maxilla facial and other surgical services.
So good has the reputation of the hospital become over the years that a number of world-quality research and complementary facilities have been drawn to the site. Among those are the Gray laboratory for cancer research, the Reconstruction of Appearance and Function Trust—RAFT, the Marie Curie research wing, the Michael Sobel House hospice, the Paul Strickland scanner centre and the Bishopswood private hospital. They are mutually supportive because of the physical investment and, above all, the high intellectual calibre of the world-class personnel who have been drawn to Mount Vernon to do research and clinical work at the frontiers of medicine.
Like so many great British institutions, Mount Vernon hospital is not the product of some grand strategic design. Since its inception in Edwardian times, it has grown in a somewhat higgledy-piggledy fashion to meet local and national demand, so that today, it is a remarkable blend of listed architecture, single-storey hut-style constructions, and ultra-modern ward blocks and facilities. What makes it all work so effectively is the spirit and dedication of the staff and their common sense of purpose.
The hospital's geographic location at the extremity of so many health authorities, boroughs and county boundaries is symbolised by the hospital's non-appearance in the Government's document, "Health services in London: a strategic review", which was published last month.
The Mount Vernon business plan for this financial year was summarised by the outgoing chief executive Stephen Ramsden, to whom, along with the outgoing chairman David Swarbrick, I pay warm tribute. The summary states:
Our strategic objectives are to provide:
the best local specialist health services,
the leading plastic surgery and burns services in the country,
a world class cancer service.


The Trust's plans for change have already taken shape with the establishment of a single Accident and Emergency Centre at Watford General Hospital with Mount Vernon concentrating on specialist services and services for referred patients.
The Trust faces a difficult financial agenda with expenditure continuing to increase at a higher rate than income. In addition the Trust faces an unprecedented reduction in Health Authority income linked to a forecast reduction in emergency admissions, which has not materialised. Regrettably, it is inevitable that services will be reduced in the short term to meet these pressures and we will strive to protect services for emergency and clinically urgent patients, and secure a long term solution.
During 1997/98 the Trust will continue to influence the planning of the reconfiguration of services throughout West Hertfordshire. Active collaboration with the St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead NHS Trust and the West Herts Community Services NHS Trust will be a key feature of this.
The Gray laboratory, which is a leading centre for radiation research applied to cancer treatment, has sent me a document, which I will submit to the Minister, to complement the paper which the local Mount Vernon support group, Community Voice, handed to him when I took them to see him, as part of our delegation, a few weeks ago. It is entitled, "The threat to research at Mount Vernon". The main points in the document summarise the essence of local constituency concerns, as well as the professional anxieties of all who work at Mount Vernon.
Financial solvency has proved to be an increasing problem in recent years, and losses have been sustained largely by general surgery. The special centres for cancer and plastic surgery treatments have been financially stable and, to a large extent, they have subsidised the general services on site. Because of the crisis that is due to the overspend, the West Hertfordshire and Hillingdon health authorities have engaged in reviews, concentrating on an assessment of the requirements for acute services in the district general hospitals. The West Hertfordshire review is considering the rationalisation of services at Mount Vernon and Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans, favouring concentration on only one site.
The proposed changes may lead to general medicine and surgery leaving the Mount Vernon site. The future of plastic surgery there has been the subject of reviews, and at least six options are being considered. Changes that are occurring at the Chelsea and Westminster hospital, where plastic surgery services have been developed in response to the closure of Queen Mary's hospital at Roehampton, complicate the picture.
The movement of other services from the Mount Vernon site threatens to destabilise services for cancer patients and for those who require plastic surgery. The close integration of other specialties in medicine is essential to both those specialties for the achievement of a high standard of care. The reviews have focused on the requirements of surrounding areas for district general hospital services, and the destabilising effect on the major centres for cancer treatment and plastic surgery and burns and the enormous commitment to research have been given a low priority.
The South Thames review on plastic surgery has taken no account of the impact of the proposed change on the Mount Vernon centre. The insecurity that surrounds the special centres at Mount Vernon has enormous consequences for work on patient care and research. The combination of a large clinical case load and important research that is of international interest has proved most attractive in the recruitment of high-standard staff in all

disciplines and at all levels. The honours that have been achieved by staff and the demands that are made upon them to lecture nationally and internationally speak for themselves.
The continuing insecurity means that valuable members of staff may migrate elsewhere, and it may prove difficult to recruit able young people. It is already proving difficult to recruit support staff, such as secretaries, who are critical to the service. There is a vast investment of capital in research buildings and equipment. It totals more than £20 million and £5 million is currently committed to building and equipping new and continuing projects. Annual research expenditure totals £8.2 million.
In view of the uncertainty over the future of the hospital, £200,000 that was promised has been lost, but much more is at risk. Early clarification about the position of the major centres and their associated research is essential. Without such clarification, the collaborative research and clinical teams that have been developed over the past 40 to 60 years are in peril of disintegrating, and continued fund raising is certain to prove more difficult.
I have to mention RAFT, whose chairman is Sir Robin Chichester-Clark, the former Member of Parliament for Londonderry City and County. We should all recognise its remarkable work. It was established to help in research and education in the context of the thousands of patients who every year suffer horrendous burns, injuries or accidents, those who undergo surgery to remove cancers or those who have birth defects. RAFT can meet those needs only with the support of donors and friends. The research has already resulted in improved patient care for an enormous number of people, but it can continue only if the money can be found to pay the salaries and the laboratory costs of the team of 22 researchers. The cell and molecular biology groups, for example, jointly require £250,000 annually. RAFT relies entirely on charitable donations. Thanks to loyal supporters, last year was a successful one, and more than £1 million was donated.
RAFT—which is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year—has written to me that it has achieved remarkable
scientific recognition, prizes and professorships.
The letter goes on to say:
The location on site at Mount Vernon of the following probably provides UNIQUE facilities for innovative, pioneering research and encourages close collaboration between surgeons at the patient's bedside".
Such facilities are crucial to RAFT's future.
RAFT is a purpose-built centre at Mount Vernon and employs 23 surgeons and scientists. RAFT's letter goes on to state that it
has received donations amounting to £600,000 from its generous supporters to expand its laboratory facilities, but until the results of the various reviews etc are known, the Trustees do not feel able to proceed
with the planned extension of the facilities.
I can only reiterate the final paragraphs of Community Voice's submission to the Minister, which are endorsed not only by myself, but by the Hillingdon community health council and by the board of Mount Vernon hospital. The chairman of Community Voice, Mike Turner—to whom I pay tribute—wrote:
To dismantle or separate any one aspect of the work"—


at Mount Vernon—
would have a very adverse effect on the present efficient arrangements.
However Hillingdon Health Authority is considering an option to remove the Plastic and Bums Unit from this site.
The Mount Vernon and Watford NHS trust, which manages the Cancer and Plastic Surgery Departments, has issued an official statement, 'If Plastic Surgery is closed at Mount Vernon, then the purchasers and Regional Office'"—
of the NHS—
'need to be prepared to close the whole hospital as other surgical services are reliant on shared services with Plastic Surgery. Cancer is reliant on surgery.'
Our consultation with both cancer consultants and plastic surgeon consultants confirms that they all feel that the present successful collaborative arrangement must remain
It should go without saying that the collaborative arrangement between RAFT, the Paul Strickland scanner centre, the Gray laboratory and the fourth facility—the regional cancer centre, which is the jewel in the crown, and the heart of the hospital—should remain.
The letter continues:
In these circumstances the four groups indicated at the opening of this report request the Minister to veto any proposal to remove Plastic Surgery from the Mount Vernon Hospital site",
which is what I ask the Minister to do.
I add my voice to those urging the Minister to end forthwith any uncertainty over the future of Mount Vernon hospital at its current site, to confirm the admirable role that it plays not only in the local community but nationally, and to give it a really good—an optimistic—chance to expand further.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this debate initiated by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), whom I congratulate on securing time for a debate on a subject of such importance to him and his constituents. I know that he has devoted much time to it.
We are indeed fortunate to have heard the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the staff of Mount Vernon hospital. I am sure that he speaks for all his constituents who are aware of the very real contribution that NHS staff make to the success of hospitals such as Mount Vernon, often working in difficult and challenging circumstances, not least the circumstances arising from the financial problems experienced in and around Mount Vernon.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are absolutely determined to secure for the nation and for his constituents a national health service of which the country has good cause to be proud by virtue of the quality and expertise that it contains and by virtue also of the rediscovery under this Government of the founding principles on which the NHS was established, principles which were, sadly, eroded by the previous Administration. The principles of fairness, accessibility and quality, which were all variable under the previous Administration, have once again become central to the delivery of health care in this country.
We are also absolutely determined to bear down on the burdensome costs of administration that were the product of the internal market created by the previous

Government. This Government put the emphasis on patients and patient care and on ensuring that we use resources cost-effectively so that every penny of additional spending is well spent.
We have seen this winter an example of how the additional £1.2 billion that we made available for the NHS across the country has been used to ensure that health and social services, working together, have helped not only to meet the inevitable demands of winter but to begin to redress the underfunding that characterised the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman outlined the impact of that underfunding on Mount Vernon.
The recent publication of our Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" and the White Paper "The new NHS" show the Government's commitment to building a healthier nation and a modern, dependable NHS. The abolition of the internal market and its replacement by a system of integrated care based on partnership between NHS bodies and other local agencies is designed to deliver a better service to patients through improved quality and efficiency, offering prompt high-quality treatment and care built around the needs of individuals. "The new NHS" forms the basis for a 10-year programme. We will renew the NHS over that period as a genuinely national service and improve it through evolutionary change rather than organisational upheaval.
There is a very real question in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and in the minds of his constituents, as to the future of Mount Vernon.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents, especially those in Pinner and Hatch End, also use and benefit enormously from the services currently provided at Mount Vernon? Will he assure my constituents that in any public consultation on future patterns of service delivery they will have the same right and opportunity to be consulted as the constituents of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)?

Mr. Boateng: It is important that the consultation process embraces all those interested parties. We need to ensure that it is shaped and informed by those interests and is not in any way hurried or precipitate, because we need to get it right. We are seeking to take into account the broad range of views about the future. The review that has been under way since last August is being conducted by Hillingdon health authority in conjunction with a number of interested parties: Mount Vernon and Watford general hospitals, Hillingdon hospital, Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust, local GPs, the London borough of Hillingdon and community groups including the local community health council. We want all groups and agencies that have an interest to be given an opportunity to participate. The neighbouring health authority of West Hertfordshire has also been carrying out a local review of health services over the past 10 months. That, too, inevitably impacts on Mount Vernon hospital.
There is a problem about the underlying deficit. The trust's main purchasers are now seeking to withdraw funding in line with their own investment strategy, which was originally developed to manage the transition following the closure of the accident and emergency department in March 1996. The trust's cost base has not reduced in line with the proposed loss of income, which


has adversely affected the trust's financial deficit. Had no remedial action been taken, the trust would have had a deficit of some £7.3 million in 1997–98. It was therefore important to agree a cost-saving programme that aims to reduce the deficit to a more manageable £4.8 million in 1997–98. It includes, as it was bound to, reprofiling of staff, budget controls and a temporary reduction in elective work.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood came to see Ministers about his concerns, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward). We pay tribute to the work of the cancer centre at the hospital; it is obviously world class and world renowned, but it must be stressed that local services are also important.
The final configuration must be both clinically coherent and financially viable. It will be decided after the most careful consideration, which will take into account also the review of the plastics and burns service and the relationship between that service and the cancer service. Any proposals for significant service changes will need to ensure that financial balance and sustainable services throughout the health care economy in Hillingdon and West Hertfordshire are achieved. I can assure all hon. Members that all such proposals will be subject to full public consultation and involvement in the decision-making process.
I should like to say a word about waiting times, which I know are of concern to all hon. Members with an interest in Mount Vernon. We are absolutely determined to get to grips with the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government and to deliver on our pledges. The most recent figures, released on 19 February, reflect that legacy, as well as the inevitable consequences of the winter. They are not good, and we are determined to address the situation.
Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS trust was the second worst performer in the North Thames region, with 126 over-18-month waiters on 31 December 1997. That is unacceptable. I am glad that we now learn that the trust will have got rid of those 18-month waiters by the end of March. We shall expect that improvement in the delivery of the service to continue, because the previous failures have been unacceptable.
We shall go forward together in the new national health service. The expressions of anxiety voiced by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood and by my hon. Friends have been heard, as have those of the dedicated staff in Mount Vernon and throughout the NHS. I am sure that, ultimately, we shall achieve a reconfiguration that meets all the needs that hon. Members have outlined. That is the way forward—a final configuration that is both clinically coherent and financially viable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.